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.
Their brains go into overload with more than one singular question.
Even with just one simple question, it can get overwhelming for them when the truth is realized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
I can only wish this thread was about little `ol me.!!
I'm flattered, it got so personal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
"the ass" is.
First you talked about who? Liberals? As having brains that go into overload.
Then you said you wish the thread was about you.
When I asked you what the opposite of "the brains" were, you said "the ass".
I'm just trying to figure out the ins and outs of your posts here.
To me your posts, overall, seem to have a very un-American flavor to them. Always ready for a fight. Makes me wonder why.
Not a thing holding you as far as I can tell from here. What sort of limitations do you have?
Practically every second of your life is regulated by the government. To live, at the very least, you require water, food, and housing.
In the case of water, in many states, all water is owned by the state. In many areas, you can't even collect rainwater. In still other areas, you can be taxed if you cover your land with some "impermeable" surface, because it prevents the rain from soaking into the ground.
In the case of food, all food is under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug administration, as well as the Department of agriculture. Many things cannot be legally sold, except through certain channels. And of course, a whole slew of things cannot even be legally consumer, let-alone grown, or otherwise produced.
Obviously things like alcohol, are heavily regulated. But even silly things like "raw milk", can get you fined and thrown in jail.
Furthermore, there was a Supreme Court case, called "Wickard v. Filburn". In the case, the government, during the Great Depression, in an effort to control prices of commodities, had set limits on what, and how much could be grown by farmers, and sold to markets.
A farmer grew wheat, and also had chickens. He grew his limit for wheat, of which he sold to the market. Then he grew a little more wheat, which he didn't sell, but fed to his chickens. He argued that the wheat was for personal consumption only, but the Supreme Court ruled that had he not grown his own wheat, that he would have had to buy wheat from the market. And therefore, he was in violation of the law.
On that basis, the government could theoretically prevent you from growing absolutely anything, on the basis that, had you not grown your own food, you would have instead bought it from the market. Which, to a certain degree, is exactly what they are already doing.
Of course, this leaves us with housing. Obviously, most areas of the country are regulated by a variety of building codes and zoning laws. On top of that, to own any property at all, requires you to pay a variety of taxes and other fees.
So, if you own any land, you have to make the money to pay the taxes. And if you want to earn any money whatsoever, you then have to follow the countless regulations on business. And since in most cases, it is nearly impossible to start your own business(because of both the regulations, and the unfair benefits/subsidies that big-business receives at the expense of the public), then you'll most likely be forced to work for someone else. Which means, you have to then follow all their rules as well.
Basically, the only way you can escape from the scores of business and property regulations, and taxes, is to not own any land at all, and to have no income. But in America, it is effectively illegal to be homeless. If you sleep in public, you'll be thrown in jail, and fined. If you try to sleep in your car, you'll be fined and possibly thrown in jail(and your car impounded). If you try to sleep on public land, you'll be thrown in jail, or even killed.
Furthermore, the vast-majority of laws on the books, have very little to do with a person interfering with someone else's freedoms. Think of "seat-belt laws", they have nothing to do with infringing of anyone else's rights. And there are countless public-safety laws and social-regulation on the books, which only exist to control individuals, ostensibly for "the greater good".
Practically every second of your life is regulated by the government. To live, at the very least, you require water, food, and housing.
In the case of water, in many states, all water is owned by the state. In many areas, you can't even collect rainwater. In still other areas, you can be taxed if you cover your land with some "impermeable" surface, because it prevents the rain from soaking into the ground.
In the case of food, all food is under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug administration, as well as the Department of agriculture. Many things cannot be legally sold, except through certain channels. And of course, a whole slew of things cannot even be legally consumer, let-alone grown, or otherwise produced.
Obviously things like alcohol, are heavily regulated. But even silly things like "raw milk", can get you fined and thrown in jail.
Furthermore, there was a Supreme Court case, called "Wickard v. Filburn". In the case, the government, during the Great Depression, in an effort to control prices of commodities, had set limits on what, and how much could be grown by farmers, and sold to markets.
A farmer grew wheat, and also had chickens. He grew his limit for wheat, of which he sold to the market. Then he grew a little more wheat, which he didn't sell, but fed to his chickens. He argued that the wheat was for personal consumption only, but the Supreme Court ruled that had he not grown his own wheat, that he would have had to buy wheat from the market. And therefore, he was in violation of the law.
On that basis, the government could theoretically prevent you from growing absolutely anything, on the basis that, had you not grown your own food, you would have instead bought it from the market. Which, to a certain degree, is exactly what they are already doing.
Of course, this leaves us with housing. Obviously, most areas of the country are regulated by a variety of building codes and zoning laws. On top of that, to own any property at all, requires you to pay a variety of taxes and other fees.
So, if you own any land, you have to make the money to pay the taxes. And if you want to earn any money whatsoever, you then have to follow the countless regulations on business. And since in most cases, it is nearly impossible to start your own business(because of both the regulations, and the unfair benefits/subsidies that big-business receives at the expense of the public), then you'll most likely be forced to work for someone else. Which means, you have to then follow all their rules as well.
Basically, the only way you can escape from the scores of business and property regulations, and taxes, is to not own any land at all, and to have no income. But in America, it is effectively illegal to be homeless. If you sleep in public, you'll be thrown in jail, and fined. If you try to sleep in your car, you'll be fined and possibly thrown in jail(and your car impounded). If you try to sleep on public land, you'll be thrown in jail, or even killed.
Furthermore, the vast-majority of laws on the books, have very little to do with a person interfering with someone else's freedoms. Think of "seat-belt laws", they have nothing to do with infringing of anyone else's rights. And there are countless public-safety laws and social-regulation on the books, which only exist to control individuals, ostensibly for "the greater good".
So no, you aren't free in America.
They aren't going to like this. But I do.
My favorite part was the raw milk. The Feds actually set up stings to bust folks selling it. Armed raids too.
Practically every second of your life is regulated by the government. To live, at the very least, you require water, food, and housing.
In the case of water, in many states, all water is owned by the state. In many areas, you can't even collect rainwater. In still other areas, you can be taxed if you cover your land with some "impermeable" surface, because it prevents the rain from soaking into the ground.
In the case of food, all food is under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug administration, as well as the Department of agriculture. Many things cannot be legally sold, except through certain channels. And of course, a whole slew of things cannot even be legally consumer, let-alone grown, or otherwise produced.
Obviously things like alcohol, are heavily regulated. But even silly things like "raw milk", can get you fined and thrown in jail.
Furthermore, there was a Supreme Court case, called "Wickard v. Filburn". In the case, the government, during the Great Depression, in an effort to control prices of commodities, had set limits on what, and how much could be grown by farmers, and sold to markets.
A farmer grew wheat, and also had chickens. He grew his limit for wheat, of which he sold to the market. Then he grew a little more wheat, which he didn't sell, but fed to his chickens. He argued that the wheat was for personal consumption only, but the Supreme Court ruled that had he not grown his own wheat, that he would have had to buy wheat from the market. And therefore, he was in violation of the law.
On that basis, the government could theoretically prevent you from growing absolutely anything, on the basis that, had you not grown your own food, you would have instead bought it from the market. Which, to a certain degree, is exactly what they are already doing.
Of course, this leaves us with housing. Obviously, most areas of the country are regulated by a variety of building codes and zoning laws. On top of that, to own any property at all, requires you to pay a variety of taxes and other fees.
So, if you own any land, you have to make the money to pay the taxes. And if you want to earn any money whatsoever, you then have to follow the countless regulations on business. And since in most cases, it is nearly impossible to start your own business(because of both the regulations, and the unfair benefits/subsidies that big-business receives at the expense of the public), then you'll most likely be forced to work for someone else. Which means, you have to then follow all their rules as well.
Basically, the only way you can escape from the scores of business and property regulations, and taxes, is to not own any land at all, and to have no income. But in America, it is effectively illegal to be homeless. If you sleep in public, you'll be thrown in jail, and fined. If you try to sleep in your car, you'll be fined and possibly thrown in jail(and your car impounded). If you try to sleep on public land, you'll be thrown in jail, or even killed.
Furthermore, the vast-majority of laws on the books, have very little to do with a person interfering with someone else's freedoms. Think of "seat-belt laws", they have nothing to do with infringing of anyone else's rights. And there are countless public-safety laws and social-regulation on the books, which only exist to control individuals, ostensibly for "the greater good".
So no, you aren't free in America.
If you want to live within a society it necessitates an organized structure in Americas case the government is responsible for the cohesive nature of that society. Your negative opinions of the American government sounds like you would prefer anarchy.
Quote:
noun: anarchy
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms:lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
While your idea of no government,no laws,no taxes may sound good to you be aware America would no longer be the great nation it is under such circumstances and would be akin to something akin to a larger version of Somalia or Syria where gangs of armed thugs would rule any given area.
The pettiness of fence size is used to highlight the absurdity of statism as a whole.
The whole being a collective totalitarian State with central authority.
You can't give an entity powers you don't have yourself. I can't fine or cage you for a high fence, painting your house an unapproved color, or any other non-violent act. But you and I form a State and suddenly all those things can be punished because somehow we say so?
Alright my potential friend, this is me being honest & straightforward (no sarcasm & lame attempts at humor).
When you bring up an analogy, similar to the fence one, I think to myself, hhhmmm, yeah I could be No_Recess' neighbor. In fact, maybe I AM his neighbor. Yeah I wouldn't mind his humongous fence, in fact, it may not be a bad idea considering his nosiness when it comes to how I live my life, including my thoughtviews on philosophy, science, politics, religion et cetera. (not to mention (alright I'm gonna) the inevitable & inordinate amounts of 'Tom peepery' that very often comes along with nosiness.)
This is all without considering the various labels, custom-made definitions suitable only for very particular ideologies, axiomatic statements also rigidly defined, & so on. This is just you & me being neighbors & neighborly. I say g'morning, g'day or good evening when we meet. I'm starting to like the idea!
Then you start accusing me of fining & caging you & I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I thought you & I were neighbors? If you & I cannot get along living as neighbors, how are all those grand ideas about living in a stateless utopia gonna take off?
Practically every second of your life is regulated by the government. To live, at the very least, you require water, food, and housing.
In the case of water, in many states, all water is owned by the state. In many areas, you can't even collect rainwater. In still other areas, you can be taxed if you cover your land with some "impermeable" surface, because it prevents the rain from soaking into the ground.
In the case of food, all food is under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug administration, as well as the Department of agriculture. Many things cannot be legally sold, except through certain channels. And of course, a whole slew of things cannot even be legally consumer, let-alone grown, or otherwise produced.
Obviously things like alcohol, are heavily regulated. But even silly things like "raw milk", can get you fined and thrown in jail.
Furthermore, there was a Supreme Court case, called "Wickard v. Filburn". In the case, the government, during the Great Depression, in an effort to control prices of commodities, had set limits on what, and how much could be grown by farmers, and sold to markets.
A farmer grew wheat, and also had chickens. He grew his limit for wheat, of which he sold to the market. Then he grew a little more wheat, which he didn't sell, but fed to his chickens. He argued that the wheat was for personal consumption only, but the Supreme Court ruled that had he not grown his own wheat, that he would have had to buy wheat from the market. And therefore, he was in violation of the law.
On that basis, the government could theoretically prevent you from growing absolutely anything, on the basis that, had you not grown your own food, you would have instead bought it from the market. Which, to a certain degree, is exactly what they are already doing.
Of course, this leaves us with housing. Obviously, most areas of the country are regulated by a variety of building codes and zoning laws. On top of that, to own any property at all, requires you to pay a variety of taxes and other fees.
So, if you own any land, you have to make the money to pay the taxes. And if you want to earn any money whatsoever, you then have to follow the countless regulations on business. And since in most cases, it is nearly impossible to start your own business(because of both the regulations, and the unfair benefits/subsidies that big-business receives at the expense of the public), then you'll most likely be forced to work for someone else. Which means, you have to then follow all their rules as well.
Basically, the only way you can escape from the scores of business and property regulations, and taxes, is to not own any land at all, and to have no income. But in America, it is effectively illegal to be homeless. If you sleep in public, you'll be thrown in jail, and fined. If you try to sleep in your car, you'll be fined and possibly thrown in jail(and your car impounded). If you try to sleep on public land, you'll be thrown in jail, or even killed.
Furthermore, the vast-majority of laws on the books, have very little to do with a person interfering with someone else's freedoms. Think of "seat-belt laws", they have nothing to do with infringing of anyone else's rights. And there are countless public-safety laws and social-regulation on the books, which only exist to control individuals, ostensibly for "the greater good".
So no, you aren't free in America.
"Freedom" as you describe it may have a few minor drawbacks that you hadn't planned on. You have described a situation with no laws, no regulations, and no government. Without those restrictions in place, the cost of goods would be prohibitive because everything would have to travel over privately maintained toll roads built across land whose ownership could be disputed by anyone who could pick up a heavier rock or club with which to dispatch the current claimant. Not a problem - there would be no money in existence to pay for the goods, anyway.
So - that leaves you making a living with the raw materials at hand, either hunting with crude stone-tipped spears and arrows or attempting some sort of primitive agriculture consisting of stomping on a few seeds and coming back in six months to see what grew. The entire time you would need to be looking over your shoulder to make sure some other enterprising anarchist wasn't standing there waiting on your attention to wander so he could relieve you of your stash of nuts and berries or your hapless bunny. It would be a situation of "might makes right" as the order of the day for survival, and since there is always someone who will be either stronger or luckier than you, your chances of long-term survival into adulthood would be drastically curtailed.
Your "neighbors" would be living under the same conditions, and the constant struggle to find enough calories for daily existence, much less enough fat to store in your paunch for lean times, would in all likelihood rapidly become wearying. Eventually someone would approach someone else with the idea of banding together for the common welfare and protection of all and a more efficient system of dividing and sharing the production that would allow all to prosper. Someone would need to decide who got which task, because if everyone picked berries no one would have skins for clothes, and if everyone stood guard against attack everyone would starve.
At that point there would be meetings to make these critical life decisions, and there would be disagreements about who participated to what end in the division of labor. Without some sort of ground rules (read:laws) the final decisions would come down to whoever could wield the biggest rock or club the fastest, at which time everyone else would become his subjects by default and provide for him because, well, POWER. He would prevail in all disputes until such time as someone came along who could swing a bigger club or got lucky enough to catch the potentate in an unguarded moment.
Doggone it! Those silly societies just seem to create themselves when youre not watching, don't they...?
Alright my potential friend, this is me being honest & straightforward (no sarcasm & lame attempts at humor).
When you bring up an analogy, similar to the fence one, I think to myself, hhhmmm, yeah I could be No_Recess' neighbor. In fact, maybe I AM his neighbor. Yeah I wouldn't mind his humongous fence, in fact, it may not be a bad idea considering his nosiness when it comes to how I live my life, including my thoughtviews on philosophy, science, politics, religion et cetera. (not to mention (alright I'm gonna) the inevitable & inordinate amounts of 'Tom peepery' that very often comes along with nosiness.)
This is all without considering the various labels, custom-made definitions suitable only for very particular ideologies, axiomatic statements also rigidly defined, & so on. This is just you & me being neighbors & neighborly. I say g'morning, g'day or good evening when we meet. I'm starting to like the idea!
Then you start accusing me of fining & caging you & I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I thought you & I were neighbors? If you & I cannot get along living as neighbors, how are all those grand ideas about living in a stateless utopia gonna take off?
I think he'd only accuse you of fining and caging him if you threatened to do that if he didn't follow your rules and give you his money.
You can make rules on your own property, but he'd rightfully be upset if you decided to come to his house and impose those things on him.
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.
