The unspoken moral dilemma of socialists

[Onyx]

It is unmoral to give up on civilization.

Civilization existed before the modern conception of the collectivist nation state.

Check your history.

 

[Onyx]

So, if free people were in charge, people would then not be free?

It depends.

If the free people were in charge, would they not be free?

The free people need to stand together in arms to fight against oppressors. Defense only. No system and no hierarchic control.

 

[owebo]

So, if free people were in charge, people would then not be free?

It depends.

If the free people were in charge, would they not be free?

The free people need to stand together in arms to fight against oppressors. Defense only. No system and no hierarchic control.

Yes they would, at the expense of others freedom......

 

[Little-Acorn]

Not hard to figure out why. They don't want to discuss this!

I personally have found it next to impossible to engage in a sustained conversation with a liberal about the immorality of taxation.
Also how liberal policies are usually backed by corporations. That is another they do not like to talk about.

Taxation isn't immoral per se. It's needed to pay for the things government is supposed (and allowed) to do. And it's specifically authorized by the Constitution.

What's immoral is for the govt to do things NOT specifically authorized by the Constitution. The Const has a section specifically laying out what the Frd Govt can spend tax money on. And Zoning, OSHA, SS, Medical programs for the public, etc., are not on it. EPA probably should be, but that isn't either.

(Cue liberals droning that the "General Welfare" clause says govt can do anything it wants that it thinks will help anybody... no matter how many times that has been refuted here.)

And the Fed govt is currently spending around 3/4 of its budget on such unauthorized programs.

No wonder they don't want to talk about that.

 

[owebo]

Not hard to figure out why. They don't want to discuss this!

I personally have found it next to impossible to engage in a sustained conversation with a liberal about the immorality of taxation.
Also how liberal policies are usually backed by corporations. That is another they do not like to talk about.

Taxation isn't immoral per se. It's needed to pay for the things government is supposed (and allowed) to do. And it's specifically authorized by the Constitution.

What's immoral is for the govt to do things NOT specifically authorized by the Constitution. The Const has a section specifically laying out what the Frd Govt can spend tax money on. And Zoning, OSHA, SS, Medical programs for the public, etc., are not on it. EPA probably should be, but that isn't either.

(Cue liberals droning that the "General Welfare" clause says govt can do anything it wants that it thinks will help anybody... no matter how many times that has been refuted here.)

And the Fed govt is currently spending around 3/4 of its budget on such unauthorized programs.

No wonder they don't want to talk about that.

I agree....

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property...

 

[jc456]

No it's not. I have to have a majority and at present working on that. Thanks Donald

You will never have majority rule. Never has it existed either.

To think a second ago you were lecturing me about make belief.

Within this constitution more than you gives me power. You're thinking in mass numbers. One has to take over the current disease and it's in the works led by Donald

 

[jc456]

So, if free people were in charge, people would then not be free?

It depends.

If the free people were in charge, would they not be free?

The free people need to stand together in arms to fight against oppressors. Defense only. No system and no hierarchic control.

That defines war. Hmmm seen that before don't you agree?

 

[Onyx]

Yes they would, at the expense of others freedom......

What slavery does freedom inherently bring about?

Who are these other people that have their freedom stripped away?

 

[owebo]

Yes they would, at the expense of others freedom......

What slavery does freedom inherently bring about?

Who are these other people that have their freedom stripped away?

The people people not in charge.......

 

[Onyx]

That defines war. Hmmm seen that before don't you agree?

I believe in war.

There is some debate on the capacity for violence in my ideology, but insurrectionism has been popular since its foundation.

If there was anything worth fighting for, it would be protecting the personhood and property of the human race.

 

[AntonToo]

It is because states have played population control for 5000 years, and hardly anybody in that time has ever been free, and therefore could not exercise their practices and beliefs at liberty.

Onyx how old are you? I mean seriously, the things you post are beyond ridiculous to anyone that had to deal with earthly realities.

Lets just run a few scenarios in your government free, pure capitalism.

Lets just look at what happens when right to violence gets de-monopolized:

1. Me and a few of my mates are very talented with our hands. So we walk into your...what was it? coffee shop? and start smashing sht untill you start paying us enough money for us to take our talents elsewhere. What are you going to do? There is no police. What do you think the outcome is?

2. You own a piece of land...and least you thought you did until some fellas with big guns come knocking, claiming their grandparents owned it first and since there is no governing authority that keeps actual land records what do you think the outcome is?

3. Warlord crew rolls into town, burns everything down, grabs valuables along with some women and rolls on down the coast....no questions about outcome here.


You seriously think that without laws, police, military and courts you are going to have some sort of kumbaya and happy marshmallow roasting around the fireplace? That this whole elaborate system is some sort of weird kabuki theater without a real purpose?

 

[jc456]

Yes they would, at the expense of others freedom......

What slavery does freedom inherently bring about?

Who are these other people that have their freedom stripped away?

You believe in no rules

 

[Onyx]

The people people not in charge.......

Yes, I guess if you use some semantical acrobatics, you could justify that it would be stripping away the liberty of rulers to rule over others.

Poor rulers. My heart goes out to them

 

[jc456]

That defines war. Hmmm seen that before don't you agree?

I believe in war.

There is some debate on the capacity for violence in my ideology, but insurrectionism has been popular since its foundation.

If there was anything worth fighting for, it would be protecting the personhood and property of the human race.

It's what is happening today. BLM started it, I believe another one is developing

 

[Little-Acorn]

Dumb liberterians would allow this country to completely fall apart.
-No food or safety standards
-No safetynet as in ssi or unemployment
-No investment into our roads, bridges or much of anything
-No education for our children

Typical liberal govt-uber-alles malarkey. "If the govt doesn't provide it, no one will provide it!" Some of those nutcases actually believe it.

 

[jc456]

The people people not in charge.......

Yes, I guess if you use some semantical acrobatics, you could justify that it would be stripping away the liberty of rulers to rule over others.

Poor rulers. My heart goes out to them

Exactly what Trump is doing

 

[Onyx]

Lets just run a few scenarios in your government free, pure capitalism.

False premise right from the gecko.

I believe in voluntary governance.

1. Me and a few of my mates are very talented with our hands. So we walk into your...what was it? coffee shop? and start smashing sht untill you start paying us enough money for us to take our talents elsewhere. What are you going to do? There is no police. What do you think the outcome is?

I shoot you. The militia shoots you. The town watch shoots you.

Self defense mate. You got to adhere to that NAP.

2. I own a piece of land. You own an adjacent piece of land. Three guys with big guns come knocking, claiming their grandparent owned it first and since there is no governing authority that keeps actual land records what do you think the outcome is?

If the situation does not turn violent, it is not societies business to play judge, jury, and executioner.

If the situation turns violent, then society should act in favor of the party operating in self defense

3. Warlord crew rolls into town, burns everything down, grabs valuables along with some women and roll on down the coast.

Now this is getting pretty fantastical. Lol, warlords in the rural midwest.

Kill them. Shoot them. Burn them.

Larger organization needs to exist with armed groups. Violence begets violence. Force needs to be met with greater force.

You seriously think that without laws, police, military and courts you are going to have some sort of kumbaya and happy marshmallow roasting around the fireplace?

Fixed your post.

No, I actually do not believe in a kumbaya utopian world. That kind of world only exists in fantasy.

 

[jc456]

It is because states have played population control for 5000 years, and hardly anybody in that time has ever been free, and therefore could not exercise their practices and beliefs at liberty.

Onyx how old are you? I mean seriously, the things you post are beyond ridiculous to anyone that had to deal with earthly realities.

Lets just run a few scenarios in your government free, pure capitalism.

Lets just look at what happens when right to violence gets de-monopolized:

1. Me and a few of my mates are very talented with our hands. So we walk into your...what was it? coffee shop? and start smashing sht untill you start paying us enough money for us to take our talents elsewhere. What are you going to do? There is no police. What do you think the outcome is?

2. You own a piece of land...and least you thought you did until some fellas with big guns come knocking, claiming their grandparents owned it first and since there is no governing authority that keeps actual land records what do you think the outcome is?

3. Warlord crew rolls into town, burns everything down, grabs valuables along with some women and rolls on down the coast....no questions about outcome here.


You seriously think that without laws, police, military and courts you are going to have some sort of kumbaya and happy marshmallow roasting around the fireplace? That this whole elaborate system is some sort of weird kabuki theater without a real purpose?

That was how it was thousands of years ago. This dude wants that grand life back

 

[owebo]

The people people not in charge.......

Yes, I guess if you use some semantical acrobatics, you could justify that it would be stripping away the liberty of rulers to rule over others.

Poor rulers. My heart goes out to them

We're not discussing Liberty....we're discussing your putting free people in charge of other free people to make them less free.....

 

[jc456]

Lets just run a few scenarios in your government free, pure capitalism.

False premise right from the gecko.

I believe in voluntary governance.

1. Me and a few of my mates are very talented with our hands. So we walk into your...what was it? coffee shop? and start smashing sht untill you start paying us enough money for us to take our talents elsewhere. What are you going to do? There is no police. What do you think the outcome is?

I shoot you. The militia shoots you. The town watch shoots you.

Self defense mate. You got to adhere to that NAP.

2. I own a piece of land. You own an adjacent piece of land. Three guys with big guns come knocking, claiming their grandparent owned it first and since there is no governing authority that keeps actual land records what do you think the outcome is?

If the situation does not turn violent, it is not societies business to play judge, jury, and executioner.

If the situation turns violent, then society should act in favor of the party operating in self defense

3. Warlord crew rolls into town, burns everything down, grabs valuables along with some women and roll on down the coast.

Now this is getting pretty fantastical. Lol, warlords in the rural midwest.

Kill them. Shoot them. Burn them.

Larger organization needs to exist with armed groups. Violence begets violence. Force needs to be met with greater force.

You seriously think that without laws, police, military and courts you are going to have some sort of kumbaya and happy marshmallow roasting around the fireplace?

Fixed your post.

No, I actually do not believe in a kumbaya utopian world. That kind of world only exists in fantasy.

Yours