How do you define the state? Does *it* actually exist?

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't support IP. If you purchase a book, CD, computer, etc. - it is your property, not someone else's just because they petitioned the state for such "rights."

I don't believe he was talking about the book, per se; but instead the thoughts and comments that it contained.
Does your ass belong to you?
Then please pull your head out of it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So, let's say you sign a lease contract with your landlord for two years for an apartment. At the end of the two years, you don't sign it to renew and he just assumes you agree because you didn't call for a re-negotiation of the contract? Mind you, in this scenario, you signed the first contract. At the outset of the US, there were a tiny few people, enlightened as they were, who signed the document. Millions didn't even know what was in it.

Another strawman; because he has no standing to to assume anything and you have the right to move when you choose to.
Just like you can move to a country that better fits your idea of what it should be.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i wonder if ironhead realizes he would not be able to make this thread without the protection of the united states government...taking it further...the nation that created the internet...and his right to free speech.

from what i gather, ironhead believes in no government, thus, we are all on our own. such a theory is nice if you own your own universe.

 

[ironhead]

I don't believe he was talking about the book, per se; but instead the thoughts and comments that it contained.
Does your ass belong to you?
Then please pull your head out of it.

Okay, I was civil and respectful towards you, but you have obviously proved you are not going to afford me as such.

You clearly don't fucking understand anything, let alone what a strawman argument is. I know what IP is about, you goddamn dullard, I am referring to the fact that when you purchase a book, the words and ideas on the pages don't magically belong to the writer - that only exists because the state enforces it per its mercantilist, corporatist law - the book, and everything in it belongs to you.

When someone applies an illogical (in this case, the nonsense of the social contract) principle to an extreme conclusion (that's how it is spelled in this context, dipshit, not "principal"), it's not a strawman, it's reductio ad absurdum.

Your other comment below about "moving somewhere else if you don't worship the USA" bullshit is straight out of the fascist book. Keep lapping up all the shit you watch on tv and supporting the gang of thieves which burdens future generations with crippling debt years before they are born and murders innocent people in other countries all with a big smile on your atavistic face.

 

[ironhead]

i wonder if ironhead realizes he would not be able to make this thread without the protection of the united states government...taking it further...the nation that created the internet...and his right to free speech.

from what i gather, ironhead believes in no government, thus, we are all on our own. such a theory is nice if you own your own universe.

Wow, I should have guessed you believe that government grants us our rights. Keep buying into that communist nonsense. And no, we don't need a state to work together and create wealth.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Okay, I was civil and respectful towards you, but you have obviously proved you are not going to afford me as such.

You clearly don't fucking understand anything, let alone what a strawman argument is. I know what IP is about, you goddamn dullard, I am referring to the fact that when you purchase a book, the words and ideas on the pages don't magically belong to the writer - that only exists because the state enforces it per its mercantilist, corporatist law - the book, and everything in it belongs to you.

When someone applies an illogical (in this case, the nonsense of the social contract) principle to an extreme conclusion (that's how it is spelled in this context, dipshit, not "principal"), it's not a strawman, it's reductio ad absurdum.

Your other comment below about "moving somewhere else if you don't worship the USA" bullshit is straight out of the fascist book. Keep lapping up all the shit you watch on tv and supporting the gang of thieves which burdens future generations with crippling debt years before they are born and murders innocent people in other countries all with a big smile on your atavistic face.

There we go, now that's the level of attitude that I suspected was under the veneer of stupidity.

Who did you steal your post from; because the words and comments certainly don't belong to you.


Just because you're a polite ass, does not mean you're being civil and/or respectful.

 

[ironhead]

There we go, now that's the level of attitude that I suspected was under the veneer of stupidity.

Who did you steal your post from; because the words and comments certainly don't belong to you.


Just because you're a polite ass, does not mean you're being civil and/or respectful.

Just as I expected, you still haven't addressed anything substantive.

It's been a long time since I have been on this board. I somehow managed to forget that virtually no one is on here to be open to other ideas; virtually everyone is on here to simply regurgitate his/her beliefs and reduce any cognitive dissonance they might experience. I started out on the old politics.com (where the original group of people migrated from when this site was started) as a Green. The libertarians on here (well, who used to be on here,) gradually eroded my statist ideas until I had to admit they were correct. It didn't happen overnight, but at least I was open to other ideas - open to the possibility that my ideas were not always the correct ones.

On the other thread about non-initiation of force, I watched you intellectually squirm around uncomfortably as you danced around the proposition that you support the initiation of violence, as long as someone from the government is the one initiating the violence. You never admitted it explicitly. Maybe you should do that for yourself - every time you say you support a government program or "service," say to yourself: "and I am willing to have other kidnapped, jailed, and shot if they resist it or resist paying for it." Why? Because that is the reality of the situation. Or, you could just keep believing in your socialist nonsense of the "social contract," the magical, unicorn-like contract that is like no other contract we find in human civilization - you know, the ones we explicitly agree to and sign.

Incidentally, "polite" means the same thing as civil. Respectful is a very close synonym. I always endeavor to be respectful for a while, but if someone does not show me the same courtesy, I see no reason to continue to do so. Christ, you're probably a troll, anyway.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just as I expected, you still haven't addressed anything substantive.

It's been a long time since I have been on this board. I somehow managed to forget that virtually no one is on here to be open to other ideas; virtually everyone is on here to simply regurgitate his/her beliefs and reduce any cognitive dissonance they might experience. I started out on the old politics.com (where the original group of people migrated from when this site was started) as a Green. The libertarians on here (well, who used to be on here,) gradually eroded my statist ideas until I had to admit they were correct. It didn't happen overnight, but at least I was open to other ideas - open to the possibility that my ideas were not always the correct ones.

On the other thread about non-initiation of force, I watched you intellectually squirm around uncomfortably as you danced around the proposition that you support the initiation of violence, as long as someone from the government is the one initiating the violence. You never admitted it explicitly. Maybe you should do that for yourself - every time you say you support a government program or "service," say to yourself: "and I am willing to have other kidnapped, jailed, and shot if they resist it or resist paying for it." Why? Because that is the reality of the situation. Or, you could just keep believing in your socialist nonsense of the "social contract," the magical, unicorn-like contract that is like no other contract we find in human civilization - you know, the ones we explicitly agree to and sign.

Incidentally, "polite" means the same thing as civil. Respectful is a very close synonym. I always endeavor to be respectful for a while, but if someone does not show me the same courtesy, I see no reason to continue to do so. Christ, you're probably a troll, anyway.

Posters on this board are open to new ideas; you just don't garner respect when you deride everyone's input and act like your opinion can be the only respectfully and honest answer.
It appears that you are the one who's not open to other's ideas, so maybe you should review your own behavior.

I never said that I support the initiation of violence from the Government and I challange you to bring forward one post that shows your accusation.
OH-WAIT; you used the cheap ass way out, by including the comment of "You never admitted it explicitly."
The remainder of your post is just you trying to pat yourself on the back. Make sure you don't sprain your arm.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Iron, what should a person do with the intellectual property contained within a book that they purchase? Should they reprint it, and market it as their own idea? Again, copyright and patents are specifically addressed within the idiotic Constitution that we live under - it's not something that the modern state has forced upon us. Why do you think that is?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Regarding the Constitution - since it makes no mention of how long it is a valid contract, how long do you think it was valid for? If we renewed it today with another ratification process, how long should it be valid for? And, if it were to be renewed, would you accept it as binding upon you, or having voted against it, would you continue to attack it?

 

[apple0154]

Okay, I was civil and respectful towards you, but you have obviously proved you are not going to afford me as such.

You clearly don't fucking understand anything, let alone what a strawman argument is. I know what IP is about, you goddamn dullard, I am referring to the fact that when you purchase a book, the words and ideas on the pages don't magically belong to the writer - that only exists because the state enforces it per its mercantilist, corporatist law - the book, and everything in it belongs to you.

When someone applies an illogical (in this case, the nonsense of the social contract) principle to an extreme conclusion (that's how it is spelled in this context, dipshit, not "principal"), it's not a strawman, it's reductio ad absurdum.

Your other comment below about "moving somewhere else if you don't worship the USA" bullshit is straight out of the fascist book. Keep lapping up all the shit you watch on tv and supporting the gang of thieves which burdens future generations with crippling debt years before they are born and murders innocent people in other countries all with a big smile on your atavistic face.

OUCH! That was an asskickin'! I just saw pieces of USF fly by. :lol:

 

[Minister of Truth]

I'm sure you disagree with Ironhead's thesis as much, if not more so than, as watching him return fire (initiate force, if you will) upon USF.

Your thoughts, Apple?

 

[apple0154]

Just as I expected, you still haven't addressed anything substantive.

It's been a long time since I have been on this board. I somehow managed to forget that virtually no one is on here to be open to other ideas; virtually everyone is on here to simply regurgitate his/her beliefs and reduce any cognitive dissonance they might experience. I started out on the old politics.com (where the original group of people migrated from when this site was started) as a Green. The libertarians on here (well, who used to be on here,) gradually eroded my statist ideas until I had to admit they were correct. It didn't happen overnight, but at least I was open to other ideas - open to the possibility that my ideas were not always the correct ones.

On the other thread about non-initiation of force, I watched you intellectually squirm around uncomfortably as you danced around the proposition that you support the initiation of violence, as long as someone from the government is the one initiating the violence. You never admitted it explicitly. Maybe you should do that for yourself - every time you say you support a government program or "service," say to yourself: "and I am willing to have other kidnapped, jailed, and shot if they resist it or resist paying for it." Why? Because that is the reality of the situation. Or, you could just keep believing in your socialist nonsense of the "social contract," the magical, unicorn-like contract that is like no other contract we find in human civilization - you know, the ones we explicitly agree to and sign.

Incidentally, "polite" means the same thing as civil. Respectful is a very close synonym. I always endeavor to be respectful for a while, but if someone does not show me the same courtesy, I see no reason to continue to do so. Christ, you're probably a troll, anyway.

"every time you say you support a government program or "service," say to yourself: "and I am willing to have other kidnapped, jailed, and shot if they resist it or resist paying for it."

Absolutely. The "State/Government" is the same thing as a tribe, just a bit more sophisticated and the purpose of such is to have someone watch your back. If one loses their job they don't necessarily lose their home. There's Unemployment Insurance. One doesn't starve. There's welfare, albeit, minimalist survival. The "State/Government", while not always doing a good job, does protect us against thugs and thieves and others who would take our things.

The proof is available in many corrupt countries. Not only do people spend an inordinate amount of time protecting their belongings but they acquire fewer assets as they know the effort that will be required to maintain possession.

 

[Minister of Truth]

One of the points the Founding Fathers made in defense of having a government, is that property rights cannot exist in a stateless society. It is the purpose of government to protect our Natural Rights to life, liberty, and property. Basic American Civics 101.

 

[apple0154]

I'm sure you disagree with Ironhead's thesis as much, if not more so than, as watching him return fire (initiate force, if you will) upon USF.

Your thoughts, Apple?

You're quite correct, Threedee. You're an intelligent Lad.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Constitution has failed to restrain the Federal government from breaking its own rules from virtually the very beginning.

No it hasn't. For the most part, it has worked beautifully, to ensure and secure liberty and freedom for all people.

No matter how much voting has occurred, those in power keep violating their own rules.

No they don't, and IF they do, we have the power to send them home or to prison. Sometimes the majority representation decides NOT to pursue those options, but we are NEVER forced to accept politicians breaking the law and making their own rules. IF they do so, it is because WE let them do it!

Sure, at the beginning it was far less a violation of its own rules than it is now, but it has steadily eroded over time.

That's because, over time, the people have become complacent and lazy. Choosing to not keep informed and apprised of what's going on. That's NOT the fault of the politicians or the government, it's the fault of a complacent and lazy people.

This is of course, completely overlooking the horrible predations of slavery, murder of Native Americans, and treatment of women. Following the Civil War, the USG has expanded its power exponentially.

Yes, and going back to the first quote I posted from you above... how do you suppose we got rid of slavery? Wasn't our Constitution instrumental in that? You seem to think of the government as some sort of leviathan, out of control and lumbering through our freedom gardens, destroying everything in its path. WE control every aspect of the government, WE determine through our votes and elected representatives, how much power and how big government gets... not government.

Historically speaking, the longer the government is around, the bigger the government gets.

IF that is so, it's only because WE allow it. The Government has no power or authority we don't give it.

There have never been more voters.

LMFAO... HUH? You mean you believe there were over 200 million voting Americans in 1776???

There's been more than enough voting going on for quite a while - and magically, the state just seems to keep expanding its power.

It's not magical at all, PEOPLE are in charge. They have voted for politicians who promise to do things on behalf of our government, and everything they promise, everything they do for us, expands the size and scope of government, again... NOT government's fault, but the people who elect the politicians.

 

[ironhead]

Posters on this board are open to new ideas; you just don't garner respect when you deride everyone's input and act like your opinion can be the only respectfully and honest answer.
It appears that you are the one who's not open to other's ideas, so maybe you should review your own behavior.

I never said that I support the initiation of violence from the Government and I challange you to bring forward one post that shows your accusation.
OH-WAIT; you used the cheap ass way out, by including the comment of "You never admitted it explicitly."
The remainder of your post is just you trying to pat yourself on the back. Make sure you don't sprain your arm.

So, you don't support coerced taxation? In other words, if someone resists taxation, they will be kidnapped by police and jailed. If they resist being captured, they will killed. This is an undeniable initiation of force. Or, do you actually take the backwards-ass, communist position that it is initiation of force for an individual to resist taxation?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, you don't support coerced taxation? In other words, if someone resists taxation, they will be kidnapped by police and jailed. If they resist being captured, they will killed. This is an undeniable initiation of force. Or, do you actually take the backwards-ass, communist position that it is initiation of force for an individual to resist taxation?

I've been reading through your stupidity, and the conclusion I come to is, you favor us being governed by 'philosophy.' Now, we might be able to pull that off, if two things were possible... First, if we all individually held the same philosophical beliefs and understood that to be the universal case... we don't, and we won't ever. And second, if Plato or Aristotle were still alive to be our ruler and leader... but they are not. So what we have instead, is your boneheaded ass, pontificating about shit you have little understanding of, cynically telling us that we need to all abandon our own ideas and thoughts and think like you, an abject idiot. I don't think we can agree to run society like that, and not sure that it's something we want to try. ...But good luck with it!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So, you don't support coerced taxation? In other words, if someone resists taxation, they will be kidnapped by police and jailed. If they resist being captured, they will killed. This is an undeniable initiation of force. Or, do you actually take the backwards-ass, communist position that it is initiation of force for an individual to resist taxation?

How long have your meds had this affect on you, where you are only able to view anything through such a narrow view?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I would assert that the state is simply a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area. Moreover, there is no no such *thing* as the state - it is simply an agglomeration of individuals wielding power in a geographic area; those who control the use of force in said area.

If you think that the state exists as an entity (similar to the concept of "society"), then consider it like this: show my a picture of your family. Now, could you show me a picture of your family without any individual people?

This is the compositional fallacy. A whole does not necessarily play by the same rule as it's parts. Your leap from the micro to the macro is not self-justifying, as you seem to believe it to be.

Also, welcome back ironhead! We seem to be getting a lot of old members returning these days.