Does it bother you that our entire government is based on forcing people via gunpoint

[JakeStarkey]

Our courts and our law are not those of "an army of commissars and apparatchiks."

You better than anyone else on the Board, Uncensored, embody the spirit of the communist commissar or apparatchik.

Fuck off, troll.

So you cut the thread to eliminate the fact you began the flame with calling someone else "commissars" and "appartchiks", and then flame me for putting it back on you.

You are so easy to out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh the irony!

and the horror!

Dainty, even you occasionally post something of merit.

This is not the case with Jakematters.

I merely out you (note above) when you cheat and flame.

 

[JoeB131]

How is he any greedier than the movie star or pro athlete that gets paid an 8 figure salary?



Nope. Corporations would simply build bridges with toll booths.

Well, no, they wouldn't. We have one of those in Chicago called teh Chicago Skyway, where they charge you five bucks to cross a bridge (Toll booths on both sides.) Only a conditioned little Republitard would think that was a good idea.

Uhmmmm . . . . . yeah they would. Private companies built toll roads before government started building roads for free. There's no reason to believe the wouldn't get into the business again if the government quit building them.

Anyone who wasn't a thoroughly brainwashed fascist boot licker would think it's a good idea.

The only argument you have is "Nuh Uhn!"

Incidently, I'm really not for movie stars or athletes getting those kinds of salaries, either.

You are fascist to the bone.

Sorry, man, symptoms of the same problem. You even notice that those movie stars who get the 8 figure salaries are doing worse work than when they were struggling actors? They sell out.

But the point is, I want an America that works for everyone, not just the rich. But you'll sit on your fat ass waiting for your disability check and complain about the "gummit" keeping you down.

 

[Blooper]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

What are you talking about?? What terrible thing did our president do now??

Im pretty sure he is talking about the principle in and of itself, not anything specific the President has or hasnt done.

A flawed principal, at best.

 

[taichiliberal]

No. Not at all. Inherent in governments is the use of force. If they couldn't use force, all we would have is anarchy with not government able to enforce anything. The government cannot do anything except with the threat of force or force. That is precisely why the powers of the government should be limited and we should make it clear what the government cannot do.

Yep, it's a consensus by the public that create the government....which is why I keep asking these jokers to tell me what they are being forced to do by gun point that is so reprehensible and detrimental to their well being? To date, it seems to be just selfish whinings on their part.

What you call a "consensus" is in fact majority rule. the fact that a majority compels me to do something doesn't mean I am not being compelled. In the end every law is enforced at gunpoint. The fact that the government thugs seldom bring out their guns for everyone to see doesn't mean they won't if they have to.

And please point out the society in any part of the world throughout history where each individual citizen or subject were allowed to do whatever the hell they want without respect to or consideration of their neighbors and fellow citizens/subjects?

Bottom line: you can't...such a society never existed.

Yes, majority rule for better or worse....BUT....the great thing about the set-up in the USA is that our Constitution PROTECTS the minority from abuse by the majority.

You keep bullshitting about "gov't thugs" and how you're forced (or compelled or however you want to phrase it) to do something against your will that you infer is horrific and detrimental to your well being.

Well toodles, for the umpteenth time, WHAT IS IT? Taxes? Well then get naked and go live in the woods and make your own clothes, get your own fresh water....and if you need to trade with someone, good luck if they sell you shoddy material or bad food, because there won't be any cops or federal agency to enforce proper standards.

Oh, you don't like welfare....well then good luck when a bunch of people left without jobs thanks to corporate downsizing and outsourcing turn to crime to eat and maintain shelter from the elements, because there will not be any cops around (unless you can afford private security), and your gun on your hip is only as good as the next guy who might be a faster draw (shades of the Old West).

So spare me this libertarian wet dream of yours, will ya please?

 

[taichiliberal]

Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.

This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.

The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.

The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.

And please give us a quote from someone on the "left" who stated in no uncertain terms that they want a return to a monarchy or establish a dictatorship.

If you can't, then you're just another neocon/teabagger/libertarian blowhard.

If you don't like your gov't...GET INVOLVED TO CHANGE IT! Remember bunky, it wasn't the "left" who cheered the Patriot Act or the Citizens United decision.

 

[Cabron]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

This is pretty bizarre way at looking at things. The only "rational" conclusion of that statement is complete anarchy.

 

[bripat9643]

people like you would be given free reign. When the lunatics run the asylum they always think things are better.

think the French Revolution versus the American Revolution.

Anarchy is only one step lower than direct democracy or more accurately, they both share the gutter

The French revolution is not an example of anarchy. It's an example of democracy run amok. The claim that France didn't have government during the revolution doesn't pass the laugh test. What do you call the Committee of Public Safety if not government? Who was lopping off all those heads if not the government?

pay very close attention, for it is only in this moment today that I feel like patronizing you. here goes:

Question: What do you imagine is the worst thing that would happen under anarchy?

Answer: people like you would be given free reign. When the lunatics run the asylum they always think things are better.

added to the answer: think the French Revolution versus the American Revolution.

Anarchy is only one step lower than direct democracy or more accurately, they both share the gutter

compared direct democracy and anarchy... direct democracy is anarchy by another name with a limited amount of rules that prove disastrous for pure anarchy, or even for the ideal of democracy

in life there are distinctions with differences, there is context, there are complex thoughts and answers

now run along.....

Wrong. Direct democracy is democracy, and anarchy is something different. Furthermore, they didn't practice "direct democracy" during the French Revolution. They had representative democracy. The fact that it was brutal and bloody has nothing to do with its "directness." All democracy is bloody and brutal. What the US did differently is place limits on it.

Your pretensions of superiority are duly noted and laughed at.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The French revolution is not an example of anarchy. It's an example of democracy run amok. The claim that France didn't have government during the revolution doesn't pass the laugh test. What do you call the Committee of Public Safety if not government? Who was lopping off all those heads if not the government?

pay very close attention, for it is only in this moment today that I feel like patronizing you. here goes:

Question: What do you imagine is the worst thing that would happen under anarchy?

Answer: people like you would be given free reign. When the lunatics run the asylum they always think things are better.

added to the answer: think the French Revolution versus the American Revolution.

Anarchy is only one step lower than direct democracy or more accurately, they both share the gutter

compared direct democracy and anarchy... direct democracy is anarchy by another name with a limited amount of rules that prove disastrous for pure anarchy, or even for the ideal of democracy

in life there are distinctions with differences, there is context, there are complex thoughts and answers

now run along.....

Wrong. Direct democracy is democracy, and anarchy is something different. Furthermore, they didn't practice "direct democracy" during the French Revolution. They had representative democracy. The fact that it was brutal and bloody has nothing to do with its "directness." All democracy is bloody and brutal. What the US did differently is place limits on it..

bripats concepts of democracy and anarchy, if put into action by his beliefs, would lead to a bloodbath. He can run along to the sand box.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

This is pretty bizarre way at looking at things. The only "rational" conclusion of that statement is complete anarchy.

And tell me what government is doing that is so unachievable without it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

This is pretty bizarre way at looking at things. The only "rational" conclusion of that statement is complete anarchy.

And tell me what government is doing that is so unachievable without it?

The very fact that you get to participate in a free society of expressed interchange is an example of what government does today that libertarianism would not permit.

 

[LibertyLemming]

This is pretty bizarre way at looking at things. The only "rational" conclusion of that statement is complete anarchy.

And tell me what government is doing that is so unachievable without it?

The very fact that you get to participate in a free society of expressed interchange is an example of what government does today that libertarianism would not permit.

Free society lol. I can't even ride my bike without a helmet without possibly getting put in a cage.

 

[LibertyLemming]

You can watch a thread begin to die when Jake starts posting on it

 

[bripat9643]

This is pretty bizarre way at looking at things. The only "rational" conclusion of that statement is complete anarchy.

And tell me what government is doing that is so unachievable without it?

The very fact that you get to participate in a free society of expressed interchange is an example of what government does today that libertarianism would not permit.

How would libertarianism prevent people from talking to each other?

 

[bripat9643]

You can watch a thread begin to die when Jake starts posting on it

I know. Who wants to read that insipid shit.

 

[bripat9643]

And tell me what government is doing that is so unachievable without it?

The very fact that you get to participate in a free society of expressed interchange is an example of what government does today that libertarianism would not permit.

Free society lol. I can't even ride my bike without a helmet without possibly getting put in a cage.

and your kid can't open a lemonade stand without spending $500 to get a permit.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, man, symptoms of the same problem. You even notice that those movie stars who get the 8 figure salaries are doing worse work than when they were struggling actors? They sell out.

What "problem" is that, people being successful? customers spending their money for the entertainment and products they want?

But the point is, I want an America that works for everyone, not just the rich.

You mean you want an America that even works for lazy moochers who don't want to do a days honest work?

But you'll sit on your fat ass waiting for your disability check and complain about the "gummit" keeping you down

I'm not a democrat, so that scenario is hardly credible.

 

[bripat9643]

Because humans are not perfect, a system of settling disputes must exist. Armed tribes where retribution or vendetta are practiced rarely create a peaceful and prosperous community. Tribes gave way to dictators and monarchs as man and society evolved. Then came Rome, and the notion of law. That a code of justice that is availible to all be established and posted.

This is the basis of civilization, laws that govern all. Governments are formed with the exclusive right to use force. In our case, we formed a government based on the input of the people governed. We entrust this government with the exclusive right to use force.

The left in this nation seeks to go back to kings and dictators. The anarchists seek to go back even further, to armed tribes.

The conservatives and Libertarians seek to maintain self-government and limit the power of government; realizing that government is like fire, a useful servant, but a force of unbridled destruction if not carefully contained.

And please give us a quote from someone on the "left" who stated in no uncertain terms that they want a return to a monarchy or establish a dictatorship.

If you can't, then you're just another neocon/teabagger/libertarian blowhard.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
- Karl Marx -

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won, and maintained, by the use of violence, by the proletariat, against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.
- Vladimir Lenin -

A state of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a state; it must be a democracy for the exploited, and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from democracy.
- Vladimir Lenin -

The proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without forcibly suppressing its adversaries, and that, where there is forcible suppression, where there is no freedom, there is, of course, no democracy.
- Vladimir Lenin -

And if you exploiters attempt to offer resistance to our proletarian revolution we shall ruthlessly suppress you; we shall deprive you of all rights; more than that, we shall not give you any bread, for in our proletarian republic the exploiters will have no rights, they will be deprived of fire and water, for we are socialists in real earnest, and not in the Scheidemann or Kautsky fashion.
- Vladimir Lenin -

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously, with an immense expansion of democracy, which, for the first time, becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence
- Vladimir Lenin -

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class, and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class—that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
- Rosa Luxemburg -

Friends of Russia here think of the dictatorship of the proletariat as merely a new form of representative government, in which only working men and women have votes, and the constituencies are partly occupational, not geographical. They think that "proletariat" means "proletariat", but "dictatorship" does not quite mean "dictatorship". This is the opposite of the truth. When a Russian Communist speaks of dictatorship, he means the word literally, but when he speaks of the proletariat, he means the word in a Pickwickian sense. He means the "class-conscious" part of the proletariat, i.e., the Communist Party.
- Bertrand Russell -

If you don't like your gov't...GET INVOLVED TO CHANGE IT! Remember bunky, it wasn't the "left" who cheered the Patriot Act or the Citizens United decision.

They cheered the Patriot act the minute Obama signed it.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, man, symptoms of the same problem. You even notice that those movie stars who get the 8 figure salaries are doing worse work than when they were struggling actors? They sell out.

What "problem" is that, people being successful? customers spending their money for the entertainment and products they want?

But the point is, I want an America that works for everyone, not just the rich.

You mean you want an America that even works for lazy moochers who don't want to do a days honest work?

But you'll sit on your fat ass waiting for your disability check and complain about the "gummit" keeping you down

I'm not a democrat, so that scenario is hardly credible.

Guy, between the fact you are here all day and your anger management problems, I honestly doubt you can hold down a job.

Fact is, Paris Hilton is not working all that hard, and neither is a Movie Star who gets 10 million for a shit picture.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The very fact that you get to participate in a free society of expressed interchange is an example of what government does today that libertarianism would not permit.

Free society lol. I can't even ride my bike without a helmet without possibly getting put in a cage.

and your kid can't open a lemonade stand without spending $500 to get a permit.

I was talking about freedom of speech. You are a part of society, thus there are limitations expressed by the leges and supreme courts of We the People.

You can always move away.