Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Who takes 100% of what you produce? Taxes are clearly defined. Apparently people like giving up some their production to get things like infrastructure, technological innovation, and entitlements.
Didn't answer it.
Quote:
2. Because of elected representation.
So I can get together with some friends and elect one of us to take your stuff?
Quote:
3. Personally, I wish my money doesnt go to our ignorant middle eastern foreign policy.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Lots of God talk in that version of history. Pretty sure the founders were very wary of church and state. You mad about the abortion ruling being struck down I assume?
However, they were not wary of God. They were to organized Government same as to organized Church. They didn't like either one as a organization. "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" Thus the U.S. Constitution was born and the first amendment was to make sure the people could worship as they saw fit, without intervention from the Government. It was their priority and we know that, because that was the first thing they did.
The idea was to keep the church split up, not to keep faith out of the hearts or our representatives, but to allow that faith to breathe.
Well you need to work on framing your question better. Simply throwing out a bunch of absolutes in question form doesn't help much. As I asked earlier from someone else.. In your hypothetical... How are resources distributed, what are the skills of my potential "slave masters" that I am consenting to, and what is the technological state of your hypothetical?
Do you understand how silly you sound?
Quote:
So I can get together with some friends and elect one of us to take your stuff?
Well you can certainly try but you'll be disappointed with the results.
Quote:
Misunderstood the question.
Yea... I think the misunderstanding is on your end.
What's your end game? Mental masturbation? Otherwise, what's the point?
However, they were not wary of God. They were to organized Government same as to organized Church. They didn't like either one as a organization. "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" Thus the U.S. Constitution was born and the first amendment was to make sure the people could worship as they saw fit, without intervention from the Government. It was their priority and we know that, because that was the first thing they did.
The idea was to keep the church split up, not to keep faith out of the hearts or our representatives, but to allow that faith to breathe.
A cabal (secret ballot) of pirates, looters, and tyrants forming a "majority" have no more right to impose their will upon an individual than any single person has a right to impose their will upon any other person with violence or aggression. A "majority", "collective", or "government" has no right to impose their will upon anyone through initiations of force. And to contend that any such person, group, or government does have such a right is to condone, support, and defend a "society" completely based on aggression, violence, and slavery.
And none of us here are the thirty-nine men who signed the Constitution over 240 years ago anyway, so that "contract" has no validity to any of us. I would not, and no sane person would, enter voluntarily into any agreement with any person, group, or government which granted the other party a right to initiate force upon them, extort from them, abuse them, impose their personal beliefs and special interests upon them simply because it was their whim. No one would subject themselves to the arbitrary will and interests of the mob or the government voluntarily.
To suggest that by "voting" one is somehow "writing" the laws is laughable at best. "Voting" is just participating in the barbaric practice of "justifying" violence and aggression towards the minority. Two neighbors deciding to enslave the third, "democracy", is as despotic and evil as is any tyranny.
People who do not believe in enslaving and coercing their neighbor (and who are not hypocrites) through aggression have no interest in participating in an institution of aggression and violence.
IF "our" government was to obey the non-aggression principle and was an institution designed to maximize human freedom for every individual it would be justifiable. IF "our" government was limited to ONLY being a retaliatory force against those who initiate force upon others, it would be justifiable. Then a rational person could consent to its "authority". However, since "our" government is an institution of aggression upon the individual, it is a destroyer of individual freedom, it is not justifiable.
Since it is nothing more than an evil criminal organization of aggression and violence to enslave some for the benefit of others, "democracy" LOL, it is not justifiable or moral in any way. A gang of thugs is no more moral or enlightened than a single thug. I am not a slave or subject of the "majority", the "collective", or the "government". I never consented to be a beast to serve the whims of the "majority", "collective", or "government". And since it derives its so-called authority by consent, it has no authority over me. It has only that which it "claims" to have, a fictional right to initiate force upon me without my consent. It has only a fictional right to enslave me against my will. While it can abuse me with its weapons, threats, and aggressions, it will never have my consent.
This is why we have a "society" based entirely upon violence, aggression, and coercion instead of peaceful voluntary cooperation. Because "we" mirror our masters.
Technically they aren't promissory notes. That would be a legal document enforcing the payment of a sum upon demand. However, the magic green toilet paper is only backed by the perpetual slavery of those who use it. It is not backed by anything tangible to be redeemed for. No fiat currency could technically be called "promissory". When real money is backed by something of value, it can be redeemed for that commodity on demand, those money tokens can be seen as promissory notes. But the Rothschild or Morgan monopoly "money" that we play with now...nah.
A cabal (secret ballot) of pirates, looters, and tyrants forming a "majority" have no more right to impose their will upon an individual than any single person has a right to impose their will upon any other person with violence or aggression. A "majority", "collective", or "government" has no right to impose their will upon anyone through initiations of force. And to contend that any such person, group, or government does have such a right is to condone, support, and defend a "society" completely based on aggression, violence, and slavery.
And none of us here are the thirty-nine men who signed the Constitution over 240 years ago anyway, so that "contract" has no validity to any of us. I would not, and no sane person would, enter voluntarily into any agreement with any person, group, or government which granted the other party a right to initiate force upon them, extort from them, abuse them, impose their personal beliefs and special interests upon them simply because it was their whim. No one would subject themselves to the arbitrary will and interests of the mob or the government voluntarily.
To suggest that by "voting" one is somehow "writing" the laws is laughable at best. "Voting" is just participating in the barbaric practice of "justifying" violence and aggression towards the minority. Two neighbors deciding to enslave the third, "democracy", is as despotic and evil as is any tyranny.
People who do not believe in enslaving and coercing their neighbor (and who are not hypocrites) through aggression have no interest in participating in an institution of aggression and violence.
IF "our" government was to obey the non-aggression principle and was an institution designed to maximize human freedom for every individual it would be justifiable. IF "our" government was limited to ONLY being a retaliatory force against those who initiate force upon others, it would be justifiable. Then a rational person could consent to its "authority". However, since "our" government is an institution of aggression upon the individual, it is a destroyer of individual freedom, it is not justifiable.
Since it is nothing more than an evil criminal organization of aggression and violence to enslave some for the benefit of others, "democracy" LOL, it is not justifiable or moral in any way. A gang of thugs is no more moral or enlightened than a single thug. I am not a slave or subject of the "majority", the "collective", or the "government". I never consented to be a beast to serve the whims of the "majority", "collective", or "government". And since it derives its so-called authority by consent, it has no authority over me. It has only that which it "claims" to have, a fictional right to initiate force upon me without my consent. It has only a fictional right to enslave me against my will. While it can abuse me with its weapons, threats, and aggressions, it will never have my consent.
This is why we have a "society" based entirely upon violence, aggression, and coercion instead of peaceful voluntary cooperation. Because "we" mirror our masters.
Which leads us to the sad reality that in order for one of us to be free we all must be free.
The shackles have become very comfortable for most. It will take generations...in all likelyhood.
Technically they aren't promissory notes. That would be a legal document enforcing the payment of a sum upon demand. However, the magic green toilet paper is only backed by the perpetual slavery of those who use it. It is not backed by anything tangible to redeemed. No fiat currency could technically be called "promissory". When real money is backed by something of value, it can be redeemed for that commodity on demand, those money tokens can be seen as promissory notes. But the Rothschild or Morgan monopoly "money" that we play with now...nah.
When you give the correct answer for them they'll never learn.
The concept of legitimacy is a sliding scale around these parts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
