Print

[Matt (formerly ML)]

They would say that the nation is like a country club, and that to be a member of it you have to pay dues, taxes they call it. And if you do not want to pay dues you can leave their club/country. Nobody is preventing you from leaving. They agree you own yourself and your productivity. You just have to pay to play in their country.

I don't agree with that one bit, but that is the liberal mindset. That is what they truly believe, and I have yet to find an argument to convince them otherwise.

The comparison to a country club doesn't fit. You don't have to move house to withdraw from a country club. A shopkeep beset by an extortionist mobster is not obligated to move because he is a victim of force.

Whether or not they agree that each of us owns himself and what he produces is not at all clear. On the contrary, note the pervasive emphasis on "giving something back." It belies a belief that one's mere existence imposes an obligation to everyone.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

Seriously, what method of 'collection' do you propose for those items that are now shared-services; police, fire, roads, etc?

Look, there is no possible way I can have all the answers to everything.

What I do know is that there are far too many things I don't need or want that I'm compelled to finance.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

Any form of collection is fine with him as long as he does not have to participate. 

Don't ever presume to speak for me.

You went out like a light when I asked why you presume to impose your preferences on me without my consent, when I'd never do such a thing to you.

Matt when you drive the next time you can thank me as much as yourself for that asphalt your car rides on.

Compliance under duress does not imply agreement. Do I really need to point out that I pay for fuel just like you?

You thief, how dare you allow the government to take money from me so you can have a paved road, you are such a hypocritical *** hole!

Am I now supposed to personally defend you and every other person who's been victimized by government and its apologists such as you? I have enough work to do defending myself and my family.

You don't know which way is up.

Next time you take a drink from the tap, you can thank me!  Next time you need a police car because your neighbor is looking at your wallet and drooling you can thank me!

You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Too many to address in my precious lifetime.

You act as if voting and paying taxes was something that was invented 3 years ago just to piss you off.

Nope. Taxation has an extraordinarily long and violent history, and unfortunately, an endless mob of apologists like you.

You tell me to justify myself...

I don't vote because I won't impose my preferences upon you, because it's wrong. I have asked simply this: why would you do such a thing to me, when I would never do such a thing to you? Why would you impose your preferences on me?

...how about you justify to me and the rest of us, why YOU should not have to participate, aside from the fact that you are greedy and rich and just plain don;t feel you should have too.

More assumption. You don't know me. You don't know how old I am or how long I've been working. You're still stuck on that number, which, by the way, I tossed out as bait, and you swallowed right straight through 'til it clattered on porcelain.

All you need to know is that you have no right to make me participate in your game.

You rolled those dice. Not me. You pay the consequences. Not me.

Let me remind you that I have never taken a thing from the government other than what are common shared services (city water, roads, public schools, etc.).  I have never taken a dime of welfare, in any form (unemployment, financial aid, etc.).  Why are you so special? 

...

I pay my share.

There is more at stake than confiscation of property.

Like I said to Smash, would you participate in your own execution?

You should really find a political platform to get behind and vote for their candidate.

Right there is where you can't see past the shadows on your cave wall. Thoreau nailed it:

"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body."

But at some point there is a common $$$ value that must be paid for basic services that we all use.

This is like saying a little murder is necessary.

I suppose you could always live on a mountainside somewhere and live off the radar.  Please?!?!?!

Yet another supplication to the nasty old "love it or leave it."

Come build your toll booth. I dare you.

You and I both know you won't. You'd rather hide behind the excuse of "common $$$ value."

After all, it's just a little murder.

[Monrover]

Look, there is no possible way I can have all the answers to everything.

What I do know is that there are far too many things I don't need or want that I'm compelled to finance.

I was expecting more flesh to the skeleton than what you provided in your reply.

Your starting point when answering others led me to consider that you may have been able to articualte a reasonable alternative to our current method of payment for shared services.

Since many of us would take the similar position that we each pay more than we desire to finance projects that we dislike; it seems reasonable to me that your extreme position would have been more forthcoming in alternatives.

So, where does a government exist that functions more similarly to your desires and where does a government exist that finances shared services in a manner consistent with your beliefs?

[jbs49238]

Don't ever presume to speak for me.

You went out like a light when I asked why you presume to impose your preferences on me without my consent, when I'd never do such a thing to you.

Firstly, I would never presume to speak for you.  I could never relate your beliefs and keep a straight face at the same time!  "I would never do that to you, why would you (JBS CANT"S HELP IT AND STARTS TO LAUGH!) do that to me"

I do not impose anything upon you by my act of voting.  I am participating in the established process by which we choose our leaders and decisions are made.  Your consent is implied because you are a US citizen, as such you have an equal say in the same exact process as I do.  Because you refuse to participate in the process does not make you exempt from the bi-products of said process.

As far as "going out like a light"... I have been very consistent in rebutting your "points", it is you that refuses to answer questions when probed, not me.

Compliance under duress does not imply agreement. Do I really need to point out that I pay for fuel just like you?

Buying fuel is not compliance under duress!  You don't have to drive, buy a horse, ride a bike, you have choices!

Am I now supposed to personally defend you and every other person who's been victimized by government and its apologists such as you? I have enough work to do defending myself and my family.

As I said before, I need nothing from you.  The only thing I would like from you is for you to answer the question why you feel you should be exempt from the bi-products of our electoral process simply because you refuse to participate.  If I could save every penny I pay in taxes just because I refused to vote my mortgage would be paid, and I would have no debt at all.

What are you defending your family from?  Who is knocking at your door seeking an unreasonable bounty from you.  Has the government suggested you pay more than you legally should by the Tax Codes?  Are they there with guns waiting for your wallet?

You don't know which way is up.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Too many to address in my precious lifetime.

Nope. Taxation has an extraordinarily long and violent history, and unfortunately, an endless mob of apologists like you.

I thought we were talking about voting.  You are putting the cart before the horse now.  This discussion is about the immorality of participating in the process of electing officials, the rest is bi-product.  YOU DON'T LIKE THE BI-PRODUCT NOW SO THE PROCESS HAS BECOME IMMORAL TO YOU!  That only makes you a sore loser.

I don't vote because I won't impose my preferences upon you, because it's wrong. I have asked simply this: why would you do such a thing to me, when I would never do such a thing to you? Why would you impose your preferences on me?

Again I re-itterate... You don't vote because the bi-product is not favorable to you.  If the bi-product was favorable to you, I am more than confident in the fact you would file a ballot.  The answer to you "simple question" remains the same:  I vote because I am a citizen of the United States of America.  Voting has been the way we choose our elected officials since the birth of our Country.  I realize that not every citizen votes and to them all I can say is.... YOUR LOSS!  The United States being a Representative Republic, allows for, encourages, and expects, its citizenry to choose the Representation that makes decisions regarding how the Country is run.  Every US citizen is subject to these decisions, good or bad, and has the incredible ability to redress through future elections.  Because one forgets, or in your case refuses to participate in this process does not make him any less a citizen, or any less bound to these decisions.  Win or lose I participate because it is my right, and obligation as a citizen.

More assumption. You don't know me. You don't know how old I am or how long I've been working. You're still stuck on that number, which, by the way, I tossed out as bait, and you swallowed right straight through 'til it clattered on porcelain.

So you are a liar then as well?  How can we have any type of meaningful back and forth if none of your premises can be regarded as truth?  Of course that is the great thing about the internet, everyone is a bigshot, cowboy astronaut.  To use a line from Family Guy: "Hey this guy's a phony... this cowboy hat comes right off!" 

All you need to know is that you have no right to make me participate in your game.

This you are correct about.  I have no right to make you participate.  The beauty of it is I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE, and you have no right to keep me from participating.  Ironically, this being such a great country, you still have every right to redress, even though you do not participate, unfortunatly you do not have the right to be heard.  Basically I see you talkin, but I couldn't care less what you are saying.

You rolled those dice. Not me. You pay the consequences. Not me.

My horse didn't come out a winner this time, but yes I am still subject to the bi-product.  SO ARE YOU!  You are a citizen of this country, participation or not, you are still subject to the bi-product.

There is more at stake than confiscation of property.

Like I said to Smash, would you participate in your own execution?

Of course not, then again no one is waiting at my door with a gun either as apparently they are all at your house.  The only way to change the date of the execution is to redress the judge.  If that judge does not suit you, you have to pick a new one.  If you choose not to find a new judge, only then is your execution a done deal.

Right there is where you can't see past the shadows on your cave wall. Thoreau nailed it:

"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body."

I would argue that this is the age old "me before thee" argument.  And as Thoreau is in this passage, you as well are expressing your greed.  You can put yourself first all you want, but failing to recognize that you have a responsibility to society as well simply makes you greedy, and yes very clearly explains why you hold this position.

This is like saying a little murder is necessary.

I am pretty sure I am not equating roads, and police to genocide.  Although if we were to have it your way, there would be plenty of murder now would there not?  Those feeling they are entitled to what you have so they will just come and take it.  Like I said before... Have it your way, but what will happen when the street gangs come with guns and knives to take forcibly what you own?  You may get one or two of them, but you will perish and your belongings will be gone.  We will only be left to wonder why no one was there to protect you from these thugs.  Remeber this will be a legal activity, laws will be gone, heaven forbid we impose a law against you that says you cannot kill another.

So my question to you is this:  Which is more immoral?  The person electing a representative to make decisions on thier behalf based on thier personal views?  Or the sharp point of the street thugs knife being thrust into your chest when he leaglly takes your belongings because he can?

Yet another supplication to the nasty old "love it or leave it."

I am not really suggesting "love it or leave it"!  I have asked you where is the country that does a better job securing the rights and well being of its citizenry?  Is there a country that better suits your desires to live as you choose?  Last I checked we all choose to be citizens of this country, you are allowed to leave!  Where is it you would go?

Come build your toll booth. I dare you.

You and I both know you won't. You'd rather hide behind the excuse of "common $$$ value."

I don't need to... you voluntarily buy gas!

[Pax Gothorum]

Ah, yes.  "Change."  "Change We Can Believe In!"  The Obamessiah and his sidekicks are looking just like the last several occupants of the White House: some cronyism here, a few bombs there, taking care of the globalists' agenda first...  "We're from the government, and we're "Here To Help!"  Please, please!  They've "helped" us quite enough already:

Obama's war on terror <- link

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to othercountries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

Endowed by (our) Creator is a concept of Rights that doesn't exist in the New World Order or to its henchmen - and to oppose them makes one a "Terrorist!"

[Matt (formerly ML)]

I was expecting more flesh to the skeleton than what you provided in your reply.

I owe you nothing, despite your expectations. I exist to live to my life. It doesn't matter one whit if I meet your expectations.

Your starting point when answering others led me to consider that you may have been able to articualte a reasonable alternative to our current method of payment for shared services.

Since many of us would take the similar position that we each pay more than we desire to finance projects that we dislike; it seems reasonable to me...

Check your premises. And be very, very careful when you call upon what passes for "reasonable" in what has become a rapaciously unreasonable society.

...that your extreme position would have been more forthcoming in alternatives.

Like I said, there is no possible way for me to have all the answers. I have never claimed to be a constructive critic. Must I have a solution before I point out a problem?

So, where does a government exist that functions more similarly to your desires and where does a government exist that finances shared services in a manner consistent with your beliefs?

You are making the absurd assumption that government (that is, force imposed upon your neighbors) is necessary to live your life. You're also flirting with those "love it or leave it" microcephalics.

[jbs49238]

I see you are on Matt,

If you are going to spend an hour typing a diatribe of all the same 'ol why would I do that to you, "love it or leave it", I dare to you to build a toll booth..... don't waste my time (or yours) I have already got you covered.

Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

Firstly, I would never presume to speak for you.

That's bull****. You've already presumed to speak for me. Click this sentence, liar:
Any form of collection is fine with him as long as he does not have to participate.

This is the problem with lying: when someone catches you doing it, even one time, no one can completely trust a thing you say, ever again.

I do not impose anything upon you by my act of voting.  I am participating in the established process...

Here you've demonstrated that you're delusional. If your vote didn't impose anything, why cast it?

Klansmen also have an established process. Your participation in a process that's "established" doesn't make it any less murderous.

Your consent is implied because you are a US citizen...

The accident of my birth in a particular place is irrelevant. Once again, you're jerking off to the "love it or leave it" mantra.

...as such you have an equal say in the same exact process as I do.

That's no different than voting on which thug takes money from both of us. There is no way to opt out of being rolled.

You're using "process" as a substitute for moral discernment.

Because you refuse to participate in the process does not make you exempt from the bi-products of said process.

This, unfortunately, is brutally true. I didn't opt in, yet I'm compelled to finance things I despise. This is like a nun being compelled to participate in a rape.

As far as "going out like a light"...

I'll ask you again: why would you do such things to me? Would you personally come to my house and take part of my paycheck from my employer? You and I, and everyone here knows you wouldn't. You lack the stones to do it yourself. That's where you went out like a light. You got lazy and used the pathetic excuse of "process" to make your moral decisions for you.

...you can thank me as much as yourself for that asphalt your car rides on.
Buying fuel is not compliance under duress!

If it's true that buying fuel is not compliance under duress, then why would I have any reason to thank you for paying my way?

As I said before, I need nothing from you.

Cite it.

The only thing I would like from you is for you to answer the question why you feel you should be exempt from the bi-products of our electoral process simply because you refuse to participate.

Why would a Klan victim feel he should be exempt from the lynching "process" despite his refusal to "participate"?

...pay more than you legally should...

More "process", without regard to morality. Do you smoke more marijuana than you "legally" should?

I thought we were talking about voting.  You are putting the cart before the horse now.  This discussion is about the immorality of participating in the process of electing officials, the rest is bi-product.  YOU DON'T LIKE THE BI-PRODUCT NOW SO THE PROCESS HAS BECOME IMMORAL TO YOU!  That only makes you a sore loser.

So the "workers" at Auschwitz were just sore losers? The native Americans who were exploited and murdered were just sore losers? The voting process certainly served them well, wouldn't you agree?

You don't vote because the bi-product is not favorable to you.

Again, you presume to speak for me, liar.

I don't vote because it's wrong.

I realize that not every citizen votes and to them all I can say is.... YOUR LOSS!

For whose gain?

The United States being a Representative Republic, allows for, encourages, and expects, its citizenry to choose the Representation that makes decisions regarding how the Country is run.

...with no possible way to opt out of that "process" for any reason.

So you are a liar then as well?

I never lie. I revealed the enormity of my very real and painfully confiscated earnings to make a point. "Bait" doesn't mean "false." Leech bait is still bait. You rose to the occasion and immediately advocated theft, viz, "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."

This you are correct about.  I have no right to make you participate.

You don't understand what participation or its implications mean.

When you vote, you approve of the imposition of your mere preferences upon your neighbors.

...you have a responsibility to society as well simply makes you greedy,

What is my responsibility to "society"? Define it. While you're at it, define "society."

Even more close to home, tell me: what, precisely is my responsibility to you? What do I owe you, that would make you call me a liar, and presume that you should be able to build a toll booth at the end of my driveway to steal what I've earned?

"...laws will be gone..."

You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government.

What's disturbing here, though. is the fact that you continue to equate "legal" with with "right."

So my question to you is this:  Which is more immoral?  The person electing a representative to make decisions on thier behalf based on thier personal views?  Or the sharp point of the street thugs knife being thrust into your chest when he leaglly takes your belongings because he can?

"Legal" is not the standard of what is right. It should mirror what is right, but it doesn't, and hasn't for a very long time.

How long ago was it legal to own another human? How many times do I have to point this out?: legal does not equal right.

I am not really suggesting "love it or leave it"!

Yes, you are, every time you invoke "the process".

...you are allowed to leave!

Again, a mobster's thinly veiled threat. "You're free to go somewhere else if you don't like the extortion." In other words, "Love it or leave it." You're chanting it, and you don't even realize it.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate.

I owe you nothing. You're the one advocating theft.

"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."

That reveals more about you than you'll ever realize.

[jbs49238]

Quote from: jbs49238 on Today at 12:32:23 AM

"Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate."

I owe you nothing. You're the one advocating theft.

"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."

That reveals more about you than you'll ever realize.

[/color]

IN OTHERWORDS, YOU CAN'T!  You hold a far fringe viewpoint that cannot produce an answer to any question that may potentially expose its flaws.

Anyone who reads the thread will easily understand what the "toll booth" comment meant.  I of course did not advocate that a toll booth should arbitrarily be placed at the end of your driveway as a means of extracting more from you than you already pay.  I stated that if you were to have your way and not be subject to paying taxes as a result of your refusal to participate in what you call the immorality of voting that you should have a toll booth at the end of your driveway if you still planned on using the roads.

Your attempt to call me a thief as a result of the "toll booth" comment further shows not only to me, but everyone else that if given the opportunity, you would keep every penny for you and never pay for the services that we all share. 

As for the rest..... I asked you not to spend hours rehashing all of your talking points, but I think you indeed hit every single one of them. 

And as far as love it or leave it................. Why do you refuse to answer the question:

What country does it better?  (this is not a love it or leave it question, it begs only for a simple answer)

Oh and BTW, where I "presumed to speak for you" by saying any form of tax collection would be fine with you as long as you didn't have to participate........ Was I wrong?  If not then ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

"That's no different than voting on which thug takes money from both of us. There is no way to opt out of being rolled."

That statement is complete proof that you only find voting immoral because you cannot find where the bi-product benefits YOU!  Just because you don't like way things are going don't call the rest of us immoral for attempting to shape it.  That is what the Constitution demands of the citizenry we shape our country by voting.

"This, unfortunately, is brutally true. I didn't opt in, yet I'm compelled to finance things I despise. This is like a nun being compelled to participate in a rape."

First of all, your comparisons astound me, your attempt to draw the darkest most violent comparisons tells me that you know your ideology is factually deficient so you use fear and fright to make your points have some weight.

Secondly, your refusal to attempt to change things leads you to your own rape.  Like you asked "would I participate in my own murder (again graphic fear, and scare)" I answered of course not, I would redress until my conviction was overturned, I would fight using every avenue available to me.  You choose not to fight, thus guaranteeing your own murder, or rape, or sodomy or whatever scary, violent event you want to use.

"More "process", without regard to morality. Do you smoke more marijuana than you "legally" should?"

Actually I don't smoke any marijuana.  I choose not too.  I am not sure I understand your point here anyways... how did you go from me asking if the government is asking you to pay more taxes than you legally should to you asking me if I smoke more marijuana than I legally should.  I would normally say this is comparing apples to oranges, but those at least are both fruits.  Your comparison here is like apples to color TV sets.  It serves only to divert the reader from the fact that you didn't address the point presented to you.


Quote from: jbs49238 on February 16, 2009, 03:54:31 PM
As far as "going out like a light"...


"I'll ask you again: why would you do such things to me? Would you personally come to my house and take part of my paycheck from my employer? You and I, and everyone here knows you wouldn't. You lack the stones to do it yourself. That's where you went out like a light. You got lazy and used the pathetic excuse of "process" to make your moral decisions for you."

Actually you said I went out like a light because I wouldn't answer your question about using voting to force my preferences upon you, except I have answered the bell every round.  Everytime you ask that question I give you a concise answer.  You are the one that "goes out like a light".  You have yet to answer the questions I asked you, apparently because your time is too precious.  If your time is too precious why did you spend hours (literally) coming up with this response?  Your time cannot be too precious if you are willing to invest hours of time spewing your logic, yet you fail to answer questions using the premise that I am not worth your time.  Interesting.  So in other words... we are only supposed to hear you, not ask questions or expose flaws in your logic?


Quote from: jbs49238 on February 16, 2009, 03:54:31 PM
The United States being a Representative Republic, allows for, encourages, and expects, its citizenry to choose the Representation that makes decisions regarding how the Country is run.


"...with no possible way to opt out of that "process" for any reason."

This isn't a Staples commercial you don't just smack a button and get to "opt out"!  Let me trumpet some "love it or leave it" here.  YOU CAN OPT OUT!  No one would even stand in your way, the government does not flash a gun at the border and force you back in.  If things have gotten so bad in this sandbox pick up your toys and go play elsewhere, I only ask that you tell me where it is you would go.  What country does it better?

"You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government.

What's disturbing here, though. is the fact that you continue to equate "legal" with with "right."

How can laws exist if no one is directed on how to sculpt them?  If we do not choose how the laws are written and who writes them for us, then WHO WRITES THEM FOR US?  You are now beginning either to see the light or contradict yourself.  The whole pillar of your argument is that I am immoral for voting for people to draft laws, yet you are saying that it is OK for laws to be drafted?  By who?  Who gets to choose who makes the rules?  You but not me?  You offer no solution to get to this point you just throw it out there like it has been established as fact. 

Name me a non-coercive government that has established laws.  I will either show you a dictatorship, or a country that has elected officials.  What country has laws but no government?  Who made those laws?  How did they come about the authority to do so?  These are even more questions that you probably will just not answer and instead tell some story about killing a puppy or something else horrific to divert attention away from your lack of an answer.

This is the last time I will answer your posts unless you can skip the rehashed diatribe.  I have posed over the course of the last couple of weeks many questions to you that were crafted after reading your thoughts.  I have answered your questions, but you refuse to answer when questioned about your anarchist rhetoric.  Since you refuse to answer questions concerning your thoughts I can only assume that you know your ideas are intellectually flawed and basically just self-serving!  And honestly I'll put most of my eggs in the "self-serving" basket.

[jbs49238]

Oh and how exactly am I supposed to "cite" not needing anything from you?

You don't have to answer that one, just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

Quote from: jbs49238 on Today at 12:32:23 AM
"Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate."


IN OTHERWORDS, YOU CAN'T!  You hold a far fringe viewpoint that cannot produce an answer to any question that may potentially expose its flaws.

As if being a citizen in the election process were the pinnacle of being a human.

I of course did not advocate that a toll booth should arbitrarily be placed at the end of your driveway as a means of extracting more from you than you already pay.

Yes, you did, liar. Here's another clicky link to the citation for your lazy lyin' ***:
There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway.

I stated that if you were to have your way and not be subject to paying taxes as a result of your refusal to participate in what you call the immorality of voting that you should have a toll booth at the end of your driveway if you still planned on using the roads.

Again, cite it. Where in this thread did you say that? You're just making **** up.

Your attempt to call me a thief...

"Attempt?" You did it to yourself. I just pointed out the obvious.

And as far as love it or leave it................. Why do you refuse to answer the question:

What country does it better?  (this is not a love it or leave it question, it begs only for a simple answer)

Still stuck in the love it or leave rut, despite your denial of the blatantly obvious. You're operating with stunted concepts. Countries are merely convenient groupings based on arbitrary lines on a map. You're completely missing what's right.

Besides, I asked first:

Why would you steal from me when I'd never do that to you? Why would you allow someone to constrain my life on your behalf? Why would you do that to me, when I'd never do that to you?

Never, ever, would I lend any shred of legitimacy to anyone who would constrain your life in any way. Why would you do that to me? Why would you do that to your neighbors? Why would you perpetuate such a thing upon the young and innocent who don't yet have any idea what sort of cannibals will tear the flesh off the very best parts of their lives?

Oh and BTW, where I "presumed to speak for you" by saying any form of tax collection would be fine with you as long as you didn't have to participate........ Was I wrong?  If not then ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

You're a piece of work. You did try to speak for me. Go back and look. I made it real easy, and used small words, with links and everything. If you have to ask if you were wrong, after all that, you're beyond hope.

"That's no different than voting on which thug takes money from both of us. There is no way to opt out of being rolled."

That statement is complete proof that you only find voting immoral because you cannot find where the bi-product benefits YOU!  Just because you don't like way things are going don't call the rest of us immoral for attempting to shape it.  That is what the Constitution demands of the citizenry we shape our country by voting.

More process in lieu of moral discernment.

Look: once upon a murderous time, there was a process for loading humans on cattle cars.

"This, unfortunately, is brutally true. I didn't opt in, yet I'm compelled to finance things I despise. This is like a nun being compelled to participate in a rape."

First of all, your comparisons astound me, your attempt to draw the darkest most violent comparisons tells me that you know your ideology is factually deficient so you use fear and fright to make your points have some weight.

I use analogies to illustrate concepts. Often those concepts have already been demonstrated by history. Take, for example, my reference to cattle cars, just above. It's happened before. It will happen again, abetted by people following process. People like you, who will later ask, slack-jawed, "How did it come to this?"

...your refusal to attempt to change things...

You choose not to fight...

What do you think I'm doing right here? There is far more to this  than following some prescribed process.

Again, Thoreau:

"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."

"More "process", without regard to morality. Do you smoke more marijuana than you "legally" should?"

Actually I don't smoke any marijuana.  I choose not too.  I am not sure I understand your point here anyways... how did you go from me asking if the government is asking you to pay more taxes than you legally should to you asking me if I smoke more marijuana than I legally should.  I would normally say this is comparing apples to oranges, but those at least are both fruits.  Your comparison here is like apples to color TV sets.  It serves only to divert the reader from the fact that you didn't address the point presented to you.

Yeah, that analogy was a bit of a stretch for you. The point is: legal is not the same as right, and illegal is not the same as wrong. As for my analogy, smoking dope may be illegal, but it's certainly not wrong. Conversely, voting in government elections is legal, but it's certainly not right.

Quote from: jbs49238 on February 16, 2009, 03:54:31 PM
As far as "going out like a light"...

You are the one that "goes out like a light".

In other words, "I know you are, but what am I?"

That'd be cute coming from a toddler.

You have yet to answer the questions I asked you, apparently because your time is too precious.  If your time is too precious why did you spend hours (literally) coming up with this response?  Your time cannot be too precious if you are willing to invest hours of time spewing your logic, yet you fail to answer questions using the premise that I am not worth your time.  Interesting.  So in other words... we are only supposed to hear you, not ask questions or expose flaws in your logic?

You can't go one nanosecond without making assumptions.

"...with no possible way to opt out of that "process" for any reason."[/color]

...you don't just smack a button and get to "opt out"!

That's precisely the problem. I'm constrained by the preferences of  the likes of you. At least here you admit that I can't opt out.

Let me trumpet some "love it or leave it" here.  YOU CAN OPT OUT!  No one would even stand in your way, the government does not flash a gun at the border and force you back in.  If things have gotten so bad in this sandbox pick up your toys and go play elsewhere, I only ask that you tell me where it is you would go.

Leaving is not the same as opting out.

What country does it better?

You complain that I haven't answered your questions. The problem with your questions is that they're infested with smuggled premises.

For example, if I were to ask "When did you stop molesting kittens?" I'd have smuggled in the assumption that you're a kitten molester.

Here, you're assuming that the only way people can co-exist is by organizing into countries ruled by coercive governments.

Just as a shopkeep beset by mobsters demanding protection money isn't obligated to pack up and leave, neither am I obligated to go elsewhere to live my one and only life.

"You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government.

What's disturbing here, though. is the fact that you continue to equate "legal" with with "right."

How can laws exist if no one is directed on how to sculpt them?

...

The whole pillar of your argument is that I am immoral for voting for people to draft laws, yet you are saying that it is OK for laws to be drafted? By who?  Who gets to choose who makes the rules?  You but not me? You offer no solution to get to this point you just throw it out there like it has been established as fact. 

You're still assuming laws can only come from a central coercive source: government.

Partial alternatives exist even today. Arbitration is one.

I don't have all the answers. I've never claimed to be a constructive critic. The first step in resolving any problem is to identify it. Here, I'm identifying the fact that I'm compelled to live a life constrained by people like you.

Name me a non-coercive government...

There is no such thing. Government is, by definition, coercive.

How did they come about the authority to do so?

You've stumbled upon a critical question.

How did governments acquire authority? I know how. Do you?

Even more important: how does that authority continue?

I certainly don't give any authority to any government, so how is it that any government continues to constrain me?

This is the last time I will answer your posts unless you can skip the rehashed diatribe.

Boo hoo.

Run away from your premises. Run far, run fast.

Inlookers note: you can lead a person to concepts, but you can't make him think.

[jbs49238]

Your entire post, answered nothing.

I'll let the rest look back and read the text of the arguments not how you are now trying to spin them.

I guess am going to walk away from this now.  There is no point in trying to pose questions to a person that refuses to answer.

Enjoy not voting again in 2010, I guess I will relish imposing my views on you yet again.

In the interim, without implying assumtions:

Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?

What country does it better? (No f-ing assumptions just name one.)

Why have you not sought refuge there?

There they are yet again.  No assumptions intended, I just want you to answer.  You won't, you can't!

Maybe someday you will realize that you are a US citizen and wake up from your anarchist utopia slumber.

[jbs49238]

Oh and the answer to what I think you are doing here in this thread?

You are complaining about having to pay taxes, you are using what you call the immorality of voting as the smokescreen to hide your intentions.

If you had your choice you would not pay a dime in taxes, I also firmly believe that if a political party were to rise that held your beliefs that had a snowballs chance in hell of gaining any type of national support you would be standing right in line with the rest of us immoral heathens to cast your imposition on someone else, I mean vote.

Just to set the record clear......... I do not steal from you, no one from the government has ever come to your home and demanded you follow as I wish, and if your viewpoint is that you should not have to pay taxes because you refuse to participate in the elctoral process, then yes, you sir should have a toll booth at the end of your driveway.

You also got real tripped up in your own double speak about the existence of law by non-coercive governments, I noticed you didn't quote yourself there just tried to copy and paste some stuff together to make you look like you didn't say it.  You said it here is the quote:

"You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government."

I asked you for examples and your response was to ignore that you said it.

I wish you the best of luck in your crusade, it is a fruitless folly, but I wish wish you the best regardless.