angelofdeath

no it doesnt, because if you try to murder someone you will be met with force. if you succeed in murdering someone, someone will seek justice against you. for thousands of years society thought chattel slavery was legitimate. just because a bunch of people think something, does it justify it? i think the question answers itself. this is actually the very crux of the matter. who exactly 'agreed' to participate in this? if anything, the US constitutional system applied to the people that were alive when it was originally written. how can it be binding on people 200 years later? you are basically saying if a whole bunch of people get together, declare themselves the rulers, have a portion of the population verify they are the rulers and vote in new rulers occasionally, that they have the right to do what they want to. this is nothing but gang rule. and governments are nothing but gangs with flags. my ancestors were here WAY BEFORE any US government was formed. if they didnt consent to it, how can you claim it has legitimacy over them? your basic argument is that if a power takes over a given territory, the people that live there are automatically under its rule, no matter what. and your solution is that by living there, you agree to it. its the same argument that says if you live in a bad neighborhood and people are raping and killing, the rapers and murderers arent bad because you consented to this by living there, even if it was before the murderers and rapists started committing their crimes. in fact, you arent free to go. the US will only dissolve you citizenship if you are under the jurisdiction of another government. the very discussion is whether government is justified in the first place.

if you study free market economics, you quickly learn that monopolies are incapable of forming as long as free entry is maintained. governments are responsible for restricting entry by law, regulation, edict, mandate, etc. if you use your logic that competition is bad, then are you in favor of nationalizing everything? the total state? because if you can use that argument against roads, it applies equally to every other good or service. i agree with you that education is an important thing. which is precisely why it needs to be severed from the state. the state has screwed up education so bad and dumbed down entire generations of kids, its not even funny. you assume that state schools are the best at delivering education. they simply arent. imagine if the state delivered food services? there would be nothing to check its quality since they have a monopoly and get their revenue by force. ever notice the difference between walking into a store or restaurant and walking into a government building? the private business asks 'can i help you?' the government 'business' tells you to get at the back of the line while trying to DENY you services. have you ever heard of the concept of a non profit organization? there are lots of them. but this aside, you are undermining your own argument by saying how important schools are. you see, this is what you call demand. most people have a demand for schools for their kids. just like they have demand feed their kids. so if private business can feed the poor, why do you assume that they cant educate the poor? the poor can get what they need at walmart and cheap clothing stores...do you propose we need to nationalize clothing because some people might not afford to clothe themselves? where does it stop? where do you draw the line with these arguments? so which is it...do businesses seek profit all the time? obviously they seek profit, which means since there is such a high demand, the supply will meet it. basic economics. because government has largely monopolized education, you dont know any different. a similar problem surfaced around the founding of the US. the issue was the separation of church and state. the proponents of state religion said that we needed to tax people for churches, because it was for the good of society. if it wasnt for compulsory churches, everyone would go to hell. if it wasnt for mandatory state churches, churches would vanish. (just like schools, eh?) yet, when the ties of the state were severed from churches, private religion flourished. those that didnt want to go to church stayed home on sundays. people voluntarily donated to them. now you have pastors that are millionaires because their congregations voluntarily give them the money. there is another part of education that needs to be addressed. not only are you required to pay for schools you dont use, if you seek to educate your children by other means, you must ask the government for permission! you reserve no right to educate your kids as you see fit! if you home school your kids, you have to get an exemption. now, who owns who? does the state own your family? it must because if it didnt, you wouldnt have to get permission from them to educate your own children. the very basis of government and its reason for existence was to use delegated power from the people. if a person has a right to educate their own kid, they do not need a permission slip to do so. man, you got a racket going on. some how you manage to not respond to my posts but you reinforce what a similar ideologue says while ignoring my arguments. im going to have to try this. stop debating directly with people and just talk to similar like minded people and point what i think are flaws in the opposing sides arguments, without ever really addressing the argument.

How do you survive on food brought to you by private industry? That is way more important than school. All you have to say is you wont throw me in jail if I have a different opinion and want choice

sure. but the point is, someone has a RIGHT to resist. do you agree? it might now always be the smartest route, but do you concede someone has a RIGHT to resist an unjust law? haha, forget about what is legal and illegal. think about what is right and wrong. rape is wrong. doesnt matter if they also have a law against it. we still know its wrong. see, you are just WAY to stuck on what is illegal and legal. until the patriot act it was illegal for fbi agents to write their own warrants. they had to go to a neutral judge to get a warrant. now, LEGALLY they have the right to write their own warrants. even though for centuries, a warrant from a neutral judge was needed...are they still justified? ditch the legal positivism man. if you get past the smoke and mirrors you'll see its all a charade. forget about what is written in law, start looking at what is evil. question the authority in its entirety. it matters not of tyranny is codified into law, if it is written into law, its STILL tyranny. there was a case in english common law about this very thing. a bad arrest warrant. i cant remember the exact details, but it revolved around police arresting a woman (i think) and 2 men killed the police officers. they didnt have a valid arrest warrant. the men were justified in killing the cops. yet this stuff happens ALL the time today and if anyone stands on their rights, the outcry about 'cop killers' comes from all sides. the police are tasing old women at traffic stops....the police state is totally out of hand.

see, the roads arent as bad as other things like direct taxation. because see, the roads, atleast in the US are funded by gas taxes. so you buy gas to use in your car on teh road and you pay for the roads that way. IF we are to have a monopoly of government, its best it is run by user fees. such as if you use the road, you pay for it. yes, choice is the optimal option, but you have to take what you can get in the united slave states of america. now, 'services' where money is taken from you and you receive nothing in return is the main problem. for instance if you dont have any kids, you dont pay your school tax, you go to jail. that is much worse than the user fees of the roads. i would manage to survive because in a free society, there would be no public property. and i'd use the roads just like i'd use a shopping mall or grocery store.

hey, most people wont be that stupid to resist arrest. why? because they reserve the right to kill you. most people dont want to die. its sort of like if a slave broke a masters command. sure he knows he broke the law and would be ready for the consequences, and probably wouldnt be stupid enough to resist, after all, the master retains the right to kill him for non compliance. the very issue at hand is why do these people/groups/governments have the right to rule over people in the first place? they certainly illustrate the point. how come its ok for rosa parks to disobey the law and jews, but if you disobey the law and stand on your rights for possessing a plant substance, the police are justified in killing you? just because we know the outcome of a certain action, doesnt make the police actions right. if a person getting rape with a gun to their head, fights back, they know they'll get shot, but this is hardly a justification of the rapists actions.

are you also in favor of the 'rich' paying for a loaf of bread according to their income? so you pay like3$ and bill gates pays like 300,000K? the problem is the idea that someone is responsible for others in the first place under force of law. so you just lost your original argument completely. first i was greedy and dont want to pay for anything. then you acknowledged im in favor of voluntary charity and engage in it. so i dont even know why you tried to use the first BS argument in the first place. you are losing your credibility on that one, decy. you are totally free to hold that opinion on roads, etc. why not push for government control of food and shelter, after all private industry has 'no moral obligation' to anything but profits. i've asked it 100 times. you are in favor of government. that is fine. feel free to stroke off a check to the govt highway and lighting fund. i would never use force against you for doing so. im against it. if i promise not to use them, will you not throw me in jail or send someone to throw me in jail if i dont pay? would you afford me the same respect i afford you, of not using force against me?

broken the law. pfft. the entire discussion is about whether the law is just or not. duh. in case you havent noticed, through out history, good men break bad laws. think about the jury nullification case in england in the 1600's. where the guy was locked up for preaching on the street. he 'broke the law.' should he of been locked up? rosa parks 'broke the law' when she sat at the front of the bus. should she be locked up? i heard you say you smoke drugs...do you realize you are breaking the law even though you are harming no one? by your logic, you should be locked up, because your legal positivist views say that if you break the law, no matter how awful the law is, you go to jail. should we of locked up the jews in nazi germany for not wearing a star? if a jew didnt report to the box car to be carted to a death camp, they broke the law. do you support them being jailed for defiance? if the law says that you must return a runaway slave to its original owner or you go to jail (as it WAS the law in early 19th century america) and you refused to turn a slave in who knocked on your door for help..you just BROKE THE LAW. according to you, you should go to jail. is it better to follow the law or follow what is right? just because something is law, doesnt mean it is justified in being a law

you are missing the obvious brother. government has made it illegal for private industry to produce sidewalks and roads and lights on the sidewalks and roads. they have monopolies on it. there is no choice in the matter. its sort if you give a monopoly to a private company to provide food. you have no other choice in the matter. you cannot logically say you are 'agreeing to contract' when you have no other choice in the matter. its sort of an orwellian 'agreement to contract.' see, according to you logic, without a government, there could be no private distribution of water or waste water removal. yet, i have my own private water source and private waste water disposal. i care not what 'cil' says as i have that user account on block. you are totally 100% wrong on your first statement. do you really think i am just greedy and dont want to contribute or are you forgetting everything you know about me, and trying to make a good lefty sounding argument? your logic is totally flawed. imagine again we had food monopolized by government. we have no choice in our food. if i protested this, you would just say...'you are a greedy bastard who doesnt want to pay for food!' when in fact i want the freedom to contract freely with any food service provider that wants to deal with me. this is where your stance is hypocritical. you say i dont want to pay for anything. which is entirely false. i dont want to be FORCED to pay for anything. if a robber comes to your house, says he is taking your stuff to give to charity, do you really believe that if you resist this you are against charity? i know you are smart enough to understand this, you just would rather make a nice sounding argument to refute it. but the hypocritical part comes in where you say people should pay for things. (which i agree with by the way) yet the ENTIRE basis of taxation and a government monopolized 'service' sector is that we need to socialize the cost amongst everyone so the rich pay more for something than the poor. which in effect means if you arent rich, you ARENT paying for govt 'services.' and you say if someone doesnt pay for a neighbors kids to go to school or for a neighbors health, this person should go to jail. i say, you pay the full cost of your own stuff on your own accord. you dont get thrown in to jail if you dont pay for neighbors stuff. and if you want to pay for your neighbors stuff, you do it voluntarily. to which you'll retort, 'but people wont do that voluntarily' to which i say....'speak for your self.' (which you openly admitted you wouldnt do if you werent forced on a few occasions.) as for taxes and the constitution. the constitution is far from perfect and is in fact the vehicle which has given us big government. in fact, if has either given it to us or has been powerless to prevent it. in which case it is absolutely useless. the direct taxation of citizens wasnt inserted into the constitution until 1913. HARDLY original intent. and considering the fact this country was born out of resistance to taxes, your case is hardly on any solid footing. the founding generation threw off YOUR government for imposing a measily 1% tax on tea. do you really think if they were alive today that they would just shrug their shoulders if the US government taxed their INCOMES *which was never done before* at 50%? the US government was financed largely by land taxes and revenue tariffs until the progressive era. income taxes were ruled unconstitutional until they amended it in 1913. i care not if tyranny is codified into law, its still tyranny. besides, when leftists make 'constitutional' arguments its only to try to grasp at straws to back up their case, on EVERY OTHER MATTER, they promote the idea that the constitution is living and has no meaning and can be changed any time they want to change it.

here it isthen brother...make your case on how the social contract is legitimate and how someone can be bound by it if they didnt even consent to it in the first place. dont bash the freedom case, i want to hear your case on why you need this contract and why it is legitimate. and you fail instantly if you just say..'its the law...' make the case

this could be a very solid case, however mala in se crimes are the oldest and most understood crimes. every culture has always had laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. this is because people own themselves and see obviously that they are entitled to defend themselves. henceforth it is objective truth that there is no such thing as a right to infringe on others rights. this is the exact issue. what determines taxation is legitimate? its sort of like if the mob all got together, voted and decided that their extortion rackets are legitimate. or some robbers coming to your house, voting on what to take from you, giving you a vote of course, you are outnumbered, so they just decided it was legitimate to take your stuff. whereas i say, you use the combat triad on all them. you say you have to submit because they determined their own legitimacy and even included you in voting on it. hell, what determined that the british government wasnt any longer legitimate and what gave the colonials the right to throw it off?

yes, extremes illustrate the point quite well, but its not the only way. i use them simply because you guys think that if a thief only steals a small portion of your stuff, its not theft. its only theft if you come home and everything is gone. even though only the small case of theft is still THEFT. because yall are so hardwired to believe in government uber alles and disagree with freedom, the extremes illustrate the point very easily. then of course you claim the point then isnt valid, because, obviously they make to much sense and destroy your case.

the difference between rape and sex is consent. the difference between theft of money and giving money to someone is consent. if someone doesnt consent to the government taking their money, it is theft. plain and simple. if they do consent, it is not theft. whereas you say that the theft is only justified if society somehow creates a monopoly on force and steals the money. if that is done, then its justified. the other quandry you need to face is there is no choice to pay taxes. i think the problem with your line of reasoning is based mainly on you being hard wired to think that because we are told we are free, that we are. we are hard wire to believe government is good. and because it is good, and because in 7th grade, we are taught 'civic responsibility' you cannot denounce it or recognize it for what it is... a monopoly on violence with the self given right to own you. i think you need to realize there is no such thing as halfway free. you either are or your arent. being halfway free or a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant. you either are or your arent. once it is established you arent free, we are just talking different levels of freedom, even though if you are controlled just a little bit, you are still being controlled. now, you can argue that some controls over your life, you dont mind. that is all fine and good. you just cant argue that you arent forced into the arrangement in the first place. but it boils down to you not having a choice whether you want to be ruled. in effect you do. consider the following. you say taxation is voluntary. if it is voluntary and not a form of enslavement as you stated that the very idea is absolutely ridiculous and stupid, you are free to not pay. therefore you have a right to resist a tax collector if they come to rob you. just like you do if a normal guy comes to rob you. so lets say you stop filling 1040's. they first take you to court. lets say, since you assume taxation is voluntary and not a form of enslavement, you dont show up to court. after all, if its voluntary, you dont have to show, right? after not showing up, they levy your pay check and send you more court dates. soon enough a guy with a badge shows up at your door to bring you to court. since you say taxation is voluntary, you dont have to go to court. just like how if you dont donate to red cross, they cant come throw you in jail. now you have two paths of resistance here. you can either stand on your rights and refuse arrest because afterall, you are telling me, i am not owned by a slave master known as the IRS or govt or whatever. so i can legitimately resist this attempt to seize me against my will. the police retain the right to shoot me if i resist being taken to a cage. or i can go to court, and get sentenced to jail. either way i am seized against my will for not partaking in something you say is not a form of enslavement. but lets not forget, if i resist any of this, they retain the right to shoot you for non compliance. if the police ultimately hold the right to shoot you for non compliance of virtually anything, how is that NOT being owned and controlled by the state? which is hte very definition of slavery, not having self control over your body or your rights. perhaps we should ask randy weaver who was put in the same basic sitaution, except he didnt break tax law, he sold a shotgun that was a few inches under an arbitrary limit set by the government. now, according to you, since government is voluntary and not a form of slavery, he by extension has the right to not obey this law. and if the government tries to enforce it, he should be able to resist it just he if he resisted a common kidnapper. his wife, son, dog and friend were killed or shot. the govt shot first. but of course...govt is not a bullet in the head. extortion is not 'legal' in a free society as people have a right to resist it. its theft. but according to you, creating an extortion racket with legal authority that can collect extortion money (taxes) is a way to solve this mafia protection racket. makes sense. lets fight protection rackets by giving protection rackets legal sanction. this is an entire debate within its self. we can talk about this if you really want. have you ever read and thought about nozicks 'tale of the slave?' government supremacist is a quite accurate term to use on someone if they think that government isnt slavery and it isnt force.

honestly some of the stuff in here about gdp i agree with. on another angle, the gdp is also bs as it includes government spending in it. also, shadow stats is saying unemployment, using the way unemployment USED to be calculated, before they manipulated it to reflect more favorable numbers for the government, its upwards of 19-23%. that isnt growth, that is just redistributed income. governments dont spend, they waste. their projects are all economic black holes. so if government is consuming 40% of the gdp, and it consumes 50% the next year, there is no growth, just waste. govt spending, borrowing and printing just means that private sector is shrinking.

and the government differs from 'mafia protection' how exactly? do you know what robbery is? it means your property is taken from you without your permission. perhaps you give permission to have a masked man come up to you with a gun and take your property, and perhaps you give permission to guys in blue uniforms to come and take your property, but others dont. consent is what differentiates between rape and sex. between voluntary bartering and robbery. government gives no choice, you either submit or you get a bullet in the head. just like the mafia. it seems quite silly for someone to make silly analogies when they are claiming someone else is doing the same thing. to think that fighting the mafia is done by giving 'legal' sanction to a much more centralized, much more powerful organization to do the same exact things as the mafia is nothing but the height of stupidity. its actually quite hilarious. you already have a gang of thieves running your life with much more power than an mafia could ever have and you are worried about a small mafia controlling your life. what silliness. the ironic thing of the mafia argument is that what the government supremacists never take into account is the mafia profits off of and engages in business that the government has deemed illegal. if these things like drugs, gambling and prostitution were legalized, there would be no mafia. think about prohibition gangs shooting each other of illegal liquor. this ended when they legalized alcohol. without the state outlawing these activities, the stuff the mafia engages in would be handled at places like walmart, liquor stores and other above ground markets.

you are just plainly blindfolded if you cannot see the analogy. what is the basis of being enslaved? it means you dont own yourself and someone else controls you. just because you think you are free, doesnt mean you arent still controlled by the state. the famous quote was true... most slaves dont even know they are slaves. they dont know any different. you are sort of like the fish in water who doesnt know he is in the water because its all he knows. you went through government schools, were told you were free and get your panties in a bunch when someone points out that government is force. and that governments force people to obey or else. the same exact thing slave masters do. obey or die is the reductio. the government actually reserves the right to kill you if you dont pay your parking ticket... and people such as yourself cheer this on.

i find it extremely hilarious that people such as yourself think that living under a government is some how NOT being enslaved to it. as if the arrangement is totally voluntary, one can remove themselves from their masters jurisdiction at any time and things like the executive being able to assassinate american citizens without a trial is no way indicative of bad things happening in the US. "Done....."

i have the receipt from mine when they surplus'ed it...25$

i second cool hand. glock factory mags are where its at

really? you really that blind to not see the comparison? everyone that lives in the US, is literally chained under the rule of the government. every single aspect of their lives are ruled from DC. ron paul is someone seeking to loosen the chains and let liberty flourish. considering the founding generation threw off their own government for miniscule invasions of liberty, how can you possibly live with yourself and live in a country that was founded on such radicalism? that threw off its own government, that by any modern comparison was a society essentially comparable with anarchy when you look at the government we have today and the government they had then? dont you think thomas jefferson in his declaration of independence was just a dangerous radical that deserves to be shouted down because he wasnt realistic? really? think about what those people did. they threw off the most powerful government on earth. totally unrealistic according to the experts of the period. i completely obliterated your argument about us not living in tyranny in previous posts. we definitely live under tyranny yes, plenty of people may agree with your statism, just like plenty of people used to agree blacks deserved to be whipped if they resisted their orders.

so what you are basically saying is abolitionists in 1800 were absolutely nuts for advocating the abolition of human chattel slavery because they couldnt end it over night. whereas i'd say they were 100% correct and in the right all along. i'd rather advocate a noble goal and freedom in my vocations and philosophy, instead of limiting myself to what can be achieved tomorrow. advocating the freeing of chattel slaves in 1800 didnt result in their liberation in 1801. it was a process. when wilberforce was screaming from the rooftops that slavery was evil, it took something like 30 years before the british parliament passed a bill banning the slave trade. it took ron paul 30 years to bring the monetary issues and federal reserve to the fore front. i dont care if its not going to happen tomorrow, it is still worthy of taking the morally right path NOW and advocate what is just. change not occurring over night should not deter anyone. im not concerned with what other people want, im concerned with what i want and that is to be left alone. if others dont want to be left alone, that is all fine and dandy, all im asking is to just leave me alone. you can have all the government you want, just give me my exemption card. i wont ask the government for anything and in return they can just leave me alone

i love responses that start with...'im cant even engage in this...' and then they proceed to make an argument against the very thing they said they cant engage in...but i digress. i do not seek to 'return' to anything. i seek to abolish state control over my life. big difference. although, america is the perfect example of successfully regressing all its general policies to a situation its citizens previously were living in. the american revolution was viewed by most americans who supported it as returning their common rights they held as englishmen. basic rights. the english government did what governments do...it grew and the colonials threw off its shackles in favor of shackling themselves to another government which in turn grew and became the most powerful entity on earth. the constitution is a myth, it either authorizes the government we have today or was powerless to prevent it. im not really saying that...what i am saying is that most of human history children 'worked.' this is just reality. to deny is to deny reality. and they didnt work because their parents were evil or because boss men with white moustaches forced them to by putting guns to their heads. they worked to keep the family afloat. it was only when capitalism made people rich enough that one or two people in the family could work to provide for the entire family did kids not work in any way at all. as for a government being 'necessary' for the times...liberty is universal. the issue of free speech or a free press is universal. it doesnt matter if it is today or 200 years ago. if you are going to have a government all it is supposed to do is keep the peace. thats it. all im asking is if you want to have a much more powerful government, dont chain people to it who dont consent to it. that is the very definition of slavery. being forced to do something or be ruled by someone against your will. in 1850, being an abolitionist, if i told you that if we abolished human chattel slavery that in 150 years we'd be harvesting cotton with big steel machines that run on dinosaur juice and that were guided by these things in the sky called satellites, you'd call me a crazy radical and that such a course was not 'a realistic path to follow.' you'd still be asking...'but if we get rid of slavery, who will pick the cotton!?'

i think you are taking the mainstream hysterical view of this topic. the reason children were working back in the 1800's is because if they didnt, the family couldnt eat. think about it. the level of prosperity was so low that children (persons under the age of 18, lets set the definition right now) had to work on the farm to contribute to feed the family. hell, having kids during these situations was viewed as having more help on the farm. if you can see this illustration, that a subsistence level low technology family farm needed kids to help out, you can see that as the living standard rose, children didnt need to work. when the father was able to go to work to make enough money because his productivity was so high his family didnt have to work....children didnt work. the point can also can be illustrated by how rich a person is. it was only the poor families where kids were working, correct? in another words the robber baron's kids werent working in a coal mine for negative infinity in wages correct? but lets look at the real world effects it has today. we can plainly see most people are rich enough that kids dont have to work in order to put food on the table. the living standard of everyone has surpassed this. lets look at it how a 15 year old cant work some place because of a child labor law, so they go out and join a gang. a well known hero of the 'local food' movement has put forth this thesis and the case is rock solid. because of child labor laws, his neighbors kids cant come onto his farm and work and get paid. however, they can come over and do chores all day without payment. and because they cant get paid, the incentive is to go screw off because kids time isnt occupied. this same farmer has people who he cant hire that are knocking down his door trying to get a job on his farm, because in order to run an electric screwdriver or run a tractor for pay in his state, you have to be 18. the government outlawed his job. so given that we have a level of prosperity that children arent needed to work in order to eat, do you still hold the naive view that a law is what is stopping 6 year olds from working in coal mines? and even if we totally ignored economics and economic reality, do you really think a company can come in an put a gun to your 5 year olds head and force them to work? those policies didnt help the country flourish, they retarded innovation. but that being said, the actual founding generation didnt enact protectionist tariffs, those came later. the tariffs were relatively much lower than say the tariffs under lincoln. if protectionism is 'helps' then surely it would help if we enacted a 100% tax around you. everything that comes into your house has to be taxed @ 100%. would you still say you are flourishing?

there may be some truth to that...however, you just miss the levels of tyranny or slavery. for instance, if a chattel slave is given the right to choose which plantation he lives on, what he eats for dinner and how many hours a day he works....well...his comfort level is high on the 'im doing ok' side. whereas if he is being whipped everyday for speaking out of turn, not being able do anything that isnt commanded by the master, etc his comfort level is on the 'suck' side. but the fact is, they are both still slaves. we are just talking about the severity of the situation. the anti freedom people tend to think that if people are sort of free, that they are free. sort of like if the chattel slave is 'sort' of free. he might be slightly freer than others, but fact remains, he is still enslaved.

i'll tell you what is retarded is that people think that freedom is radical. its absolutely insane. in the 18th century, british colonials threw off their own government for injustices that pale in comparison to what people live under today. people like you would consider what those colonials lived under to be anarchy. govt was relatively insignificant in their lives. a major part of the american revolution was the british taxing a morning beverage at a few percent. now, every dollar made in america is consumed by 50-60% by government. americans are paying up to half of their incomes to government. every single thing people do is regulated, taxed, or declared illegal. just because some other countries are further down the road to tyranny doesnt mean americans are free. think of it like this: america is just the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. the logic you are using is like saying...well, this guy over here in the cancer ward has 2 years to live but is guaranteed to die. what is he fucking complaining about...this guy over on this end only has 2 months to live!