CDZ If you . . .

[Brian Blackwell]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You can type text walls until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that any system of anarchy is at best a pipe dream or at worst a system designed for the strong to rule over the weak.

You offer no basis other than your own opinion, and then castigate me for offering nothing other than my own opinions.

I see no reason to change my views on the subject, because you have proven nothing to me otherwise.

That’s just it. I explain it and all you see is a wall of words. You don’t have the willingness to comprehend what those words mean, though I don’t doubt your ability.

Government IS the strong ruling over the weak, quite obviously. You made some of the immoral throng strong by supporting a seat of immense power and stolen wealth.

This is some twilight zone shit... I have made rational arguments for everything I’ve said, while you have addressed none of them directly, and instead clung to a single assertion with no supporting argumentation - freedom won’t “work” - and then you accuse me of only offering opinions.

If you’re satisfied with this level of “debate” then good luck. I hope you don’t live long enough to see the consequences of your willful ignorance and immorality come to full fruition.

 

[martybegan]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You can type text walls until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that any system of anarchy is at best a pipe dream or at worst a system designed for the strong to rule over the weak.

You offer no basis other than your own opinion, and then castigate me for offering nothing other than my own opinions.

I see no reason to change my views on the subject, because you have proven nothing to me otherwise.

That’s just it. I explain it and all you see is a wall of words. You don’t have the willingness to comprehend what those words mean, though I don’t doubt your ability.

Government IS the strong ruling over the weak, quite obviously. You made some of the immoral throng strong by supporting a seat of immense power and stolen wealth.

This is some twilight zone shit... I have made rational arguments for everything I’ve said, while you have addressed none of them directly, and instead clung to a single assertion with no supporting argumentation - freedom won’t “work” - and then you accuse me of only offering opinions.

If you’re satisfied with this level of “debate” then good luck. I hope you don’t live long enough to see the consequences of your willful ignorance and immorality come to full fruition.

No, I don't go for walls of text trying to complicate simple concepts.

Our government is designed to allow the weak protections from the strong, which is the whole point of a constitutional republic. Limitations on the governments at all levels are supposed to prevent strong man tactics, which are part an parcel of any anarchistic concept.

You have made only points supporting your already pre-conceived notions, debating about a concept of government free society that would never exist in the real world.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

 

[martybegan]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You can type text walls until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that any system of anarchy is at best a pipe dream or at worst a system designed for the strong to rule over the weak.

You offer no basis other than your own opinion, and then castigate me for offering nothing other than my own opinions.

I see no reason to change my views on the subject, because you have proven nothing to me otherwise.

That’s just it. I explain it and all you see is a wall of words. You don’t have the willingness to comprehend what those words mean, though I don’t doubt your ability.

Government IS the strong ruling over the weak, quite obviously. You made some of the immoral throng strong by supporting a seat of immense power and stolen wealth.

This is some twilight zone shit... I have made rational arguments for everything I’ve said, while you have addressed none of them directly, and instead clung to a single assertion with no supporting argumentation - freedom won’t “work” - and then you accuse me of only offering opinions.

If you’re satisfied with this level of “debate” then good luck. I hope you don’t live long enough to see the consequences of your willful ignorance and immorality come to full fruition.

No, I don't go for walls of text trying to complicate simple concepts.

Our government is designed to allow the weak protections from the strong, which is the whole point of a constitutional republic. Limitations on the governments at all levels are supposed to prevent strong man tactics, which are part an parcel of any anarchistic concept.

You have made only points supporting your already pre-conceived notions, debating about a concept of government free society that would never exist in the real world.

Really? Just pre-conceived notions... mere unfounded opinions, huh? So answer this:

Certain human actions are rights and others are not. All human actions are either a right, or not a right, there is no third category.

Rights are naturally equal between all people, whether a particular society recognizes this or not.

Government, to be government, must claim rights in excess of what others have, or it is indistinguishable from all other people.

So where may it draw from to obtain these distinguishing “rights”? Government must draw from those actions that are not rights (i.e. immoral actions) since no other category exists.

Now tell me government is not inherently immoral, and demonstrste how this is so.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Government IS one group enslaving another.

Are you under the impression that making the same childish statement over and over again makes it so?

How are you even communicating with the rest of us if government is such an evil? Shouldn't you be living in a cave naked somewhere eking out an existence eating grubs and berries, instead?

 

[martybegan]

You have accused him of wanting to enslave your children while you are an advocate of such anarchy as would guarantee such.

It is not he who is deficient in understanding here.

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

-There is an alligator army on the moon.

-Chinese people eat shoe leather.

-Harriet Tubman was a man.

-Anarchy would guarantee enslavement.

Statements without supporting arguments are irrelevant. Welcome to the fundamental principle of rational debate.

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Government IS one group enslaving another.

Are you under the impression that making the same childish statement over and over again makes it so?

How are you even communicating with the rest of us if government is such an evil? Shouldn't you be living in a cave naked somewhere eking out an existence eating grubs and berries, instead?

Me saying it doesn't make it so, it is what it is. Man is either in a state of freedom or slavery, there is no third option. Freedom does not have degrees because it means having no master, but slavery does have degrees because it means having a master, regardless of the nature of that master, or the particulars of his rule.


-If I take 100% of your labor under threat of violence, and command your every action, you are my slave.

-If I take 1% of your labor, and command 1 of your actions, you are still my slave, though to a lesser degree.


The same principle defines the relationship. Yes or no?

 

[martybegan]

Anarchy removes all the impediments to one person or group enslaving another.

Like, DUH!

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Government IS one group enslaving another. You work, they take a huge portion of the fruit of your labor. They make commands, you obey or are punished with violence. You think picking which master you have makes you free? What low standards we’ve come to accept.

The only impediment is that they will stop others from enslaving you, the same way any slave master protects their own property.

You are born free, not beholden to any other person. Anyone who claims they have a right to take your money, dictate what you can own, what substances you can put in your body, grant “permission” to perform victimless actions, is claiming to be your master.

What the hell could be more obvious than that?

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

 

[rightwinger]

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

Government is necessary in any society

Society does not exist without it

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

Government is necessary in any society

Society does not exist without it

Yeah, because people would be incapable of having any dealings with each other if it weren’t for politicians writing words on paper. Never mind the fact that nearly everything we do every day is accomplished by regular people doing regular things with no meaningful contribution from government at all.

For God’s sake, righty... hook, line AND sinker? Leave something to be desired.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

#1 abortion quit trying to make it illegal

#2 drugs, if it was up to me we could go to Walgreens and buy an 8 ball of cocaine

That's about it my two complaints

 

[rightwinger]

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

Government is necessary in any society

Society does not exist without it

Yeah, because people would be incapable of having any dealings with each other if it weren’t for politicians writing words on paper. Never mind the fact that nearly everything we do every day is accomplished by regular people doing regular things with no meaningful contribution from government at all.

For God’s sake, righty... hook, line AND sinker? Leave something to be desired.

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

 

[Preacher]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

I am an independent in thought but I vote primarily straight GOP tickets.

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the undying support for Israel
I disagree with the foreign policy of regime change,exporting democracy across the world,sticking its nose where it doesn't belong etc
I disagree with unfettered capitalism to an extent,I believe in tariff's,price controls,fair trade,etc I like a LOT of Trumps policies on economics.
I disagree on their stance on paid maternity leave

I am sure there are more but I can't think of more right no.

 

[martybegan]

Government is the transfer of power WITH LIMITS. Anarchy is the fool hope that a power vacuum will be ignored and not taken over by the biggest and strongest group or individual for their benefit and everyone else's detriment.

Just like marxism, your "system" would work wonderfully except for the pesky people that have to live under it and with it.

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

 

[rightwinger]

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

That IS Government