Once again pointing out the elephant in the room

[Onyx]

How can you justify all the great things you maintain government does when the fundamental means of support and funding include violence and theft? The means need to justify the ends, and violence and theft are an evil means to an evil end.

There is no difference between a state and a street gang. There is no difference when the mafia extorts money for protection and stations two goons at your place of business, and when the government extorts money for protection and puts a police department on your block.

It always comes down to the social contract argument. That one bullshit theory that statists hinge the moral legitimacy of the state on. No matter how many times I point out the fallacies and the errors, you tools will clinch on to your beloved social contract.

Daily addition to the wall of wisdom...

 

[TNHarley]

I am with you except for the anarchy part. Basic government service is needed IMO

 

[Onyx]

I am with you except for the anarchy part. Basic government service is needed IMO

Fund them voluntarily.

Voluntary institutions are compatible with anarchist thought. It only takes one respected public service group to collect funding and maintain the roads.

 

[TNHarley]

I am with you except for the anarchy part. Basic government service is needed IMO

Fund them voluntarily.

Voluntary institutions are compatible with anarchist thought. It only takes one respected public service group to collect funding and maintain the roads.

IDK maybe
But I was also referring to fire and police depts. Things like that.
We cant have zero laws and someone has to enforce the laws we need.

 

[Onyx]

But I was also referring to fire depts. Things like that.

Easy for a community to fund a fire department. It can be done privatized or operated collectively by the community. Personally I believe civilians should buy their own fire emergency equipment, but whatever.

We cant have zero laws and someone has to enforce the laws we need.

We can and we do not.

All you need is proper organization and guns that kill. The laws never worked for the common man to begin with. The established law always ends up serving a more malevolent agenda, even when founded on good intentions.

 

[Onyx]

Was I prepared when I opened this can of system whores? To be discovered...

 

[TNHarley]

But I was also referring to fire depts. Things like that.

Easy for a community to fund a fire department. It can be done privatized or operated collectively by the community. Personally I believe civilians should buy their own fire emergency equipment, but whatever.

We cant have zero laws and someone has to enforce the laws we need.

We can and we do not.

All you need is proper organization and guns that kill. The laws never worked for the common man to begin with. The established law always ends up serving a more malevolent agenda, even when founded on good intentions.

Laws only do what they say. People fuck them up. But people are your answer. Not very consistent

 

[Onyx]

Laws only do what they say. People fuck them up. But people are your answer. Not very consistent

False premise.

Laws are not the creation of people, but rather the foundation of a machine. The only rule society needs to govern itself by, is not instigating physical aggression against others.

The problem is not that people are fucking up the laws, but that the laws are fucking up people

 

[Ringel05]

Guess it bears repeating over and over and over again, almost all government/economic systems are wonderful in theory but severely lacking in practical application. Where the theorists always fail is they always replace the true human equation with the idealized human equation based on the theory that humankind is inherently good and can ultimately work together for the common good. This has been proven throughout history to be false.

 

[g5000]

How can you justify all the great things you maintain government does when the fundamental means of support and funding include violence and theft? The means need to justify the ends, and violence and theft are an evil means to an evil end.

There is no difference between a state and a street gang. There is no difference when the mafia extorts money for protection and stations two goons at your place of business, and when the government extorts money for protection and puts a police department on your block.

It always comes down to the social contract argument. That one bullshit theory that statists hinge the moral legitimacy of the state on. No matter how many times I point out the fallacies and the errors, you tools will clinch on to your beloved social contract.

Daily addition to the wall of wisdom...

We do not have a system of "taxation without consent". Your argument is built on a false premise, and thus collapses.

 

[Onyx]

We do not have a system of "taxation without consent". Your argument is built on a false premise, and thus collapses.

We absolutely due have a system of taxation without consent. Your contention is built on a false assertion, and thus collapses.

*eagerly awaits run off into the woods argument*

 

[konradv]

I am with you except for the anarchy part. Basic government service is needed IMO

Fund them voluntarily.
Voluntary institutions are compatible with anarchist thought. It only takes one respected public service group to collect funding and maintain the roads.

How are you going to collect that funding, strongly worded notes?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Guess it bears repeating over and over and over again, almost all government/economic systems are wonderful in theory but severely lacking in practical application. Where the theorists always fail is they always replace the true human equation with the idealized human equation based on the theory that humankind is inherently good and can ultimately work together for the common good. This has been proven throughout history to be false.

Ha, ours has always run upon the premise that the substantial people, initially titled land holding white males, were the idealized humans who were entitled to keep the lower form of humans in check at all costs.

 

[g5000]

We do not have a system of "taxation without consent". Your argument is built on a false premise, and thus collapses.

We absolutely due have a system of taxation without consent.

Nope. We vote for and against tax increases every election. ln fact, there is a tax increase measure on my state's ballot for this election, and our state's TV breaks are flooded with For and Against ads.

Try again, kid.

 

[Fenton Lum]

We do not have a system of "taxation without consent". Your argument is built on a false premise, and thus collapses.

We absolutely due have a system of taxation without consent. Your contention is built on a false assertion, and thus collapses.

*eagerly awaits run off into the woods argument*

Problem is americans want all the stuff they don't want to pay for.

 

[Onyx]

How are you going to collect that funding, strongly worded notes?

The same way NGOs collect money. They collect funding from financial backers, corporate partners, and small donors.

 

[Ringel05]

Guess it bears repeating over and over and over again, almost all government/economic systems are wonderful in theory but severely lacking in practical application. Where the theorists always fail is they always replace the true human equation with the idealized human equation based on the theory that humankind is inherently good and can ultimately work together for the common good. This has been proven throughout history to be false.

Ha, ours has always run upon the premise that the substantial people, initially titled land holding white males were the idealized human who were entitled to keep the lower form of humans in check at all costs.

I've hear that argument time and again, funny how it's not completely true based on our own history. But don't let that stop your spin, it takes all kinds........

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of the legitimate functions of a constitutional republic is taxation.

Get over that simple fact, freeks.

 

[TNHarley]

We do not have a system of "taxation without consent". Your argument is built on a false premise, and thus collapses.

We absolutely due have a system of taxation without consent.

Nope. We vote for and against tax increases every election. ln fact, there is a tax increase measure on my state's ballot for this election, and our state's TV breaks are flooded with For and Against ads.

Try again, kid.

what about o-care?

 

[Onyx]

Nope. We vote for and against tax increases every election

If you do not consent to the authority of the state, then you do not consent to the taxation it enforces.

I never voted and I never gave my backing, nor would doing so signify consent. Does it matter to them? Absolutely not.

Try again, kid.

Do not patronize me, when in reality you are the uneducated tool here.