Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Fist 666]

1. i chose explicit (not implicit) for a reason.

i said "if you're going to reap any benefits that are given to you from the government (read public services) then you have explicitly accepted the contract."

participating in the system which the contract covers whilst admitting an understanding of both the presence of the contract and the system covered by the contract you have admitted, without a doubt, your willingness and acceptance to function within the contract. regardless of verbalizing otherwise, as that just boils down to hypocrisy.

 

were you to have no knowledge of the contract, your participation could be seen as implied acceptance.

 

2. i said nothing of 'our society can't function without taxes.' (you all are sure in a hurry to put arguments in to our mouths). i said its the basis of our society, specifically our modern society with a functioning infrastructure, the US (i'm not going to argue australia for you) would not have the roads, water, electricity, etc without the taxes that have already been paid. (could it have been reached with another means--perhaps tariffs, sure, but it wasn't).

 

3. you've accused a few people of legal positivism in the past few pages, and it hasn't fit with my understanding of legal positivism: by your use is it possible for one to use the terms legal and illegal outside of legal positivism? and also "the law is the law and the law is just" doesn't fit, as 'the law is just' is not part of it...

 

4. i assume you're frankotronic?

 

5. i think the basis of my disagreement with all things libertarian, or whatever kind of anarchist you are, is the social contract issue. it seems to be the baseline of all of your arguments and stances and i simply don't accept it as a legitimate complaint.

[Spambot5000]

1. i chose explicit (not implicit) for a reason.

i said "if you're going to reap any benefits that are given to you from the government (read public services) then you have explicitly accepted the contract."

participating in the system which the contract covers whilst admitting an understanding of both the presence of the contract and the system covered by the contract you have admitted, without a doubt, your willingness and acceptance to function within the contract. regardless of verbalizing otherwise, as that just boils down to hypocrisy.

 

were you to have no knowledge of the contract, your participation could be seen as implied acceptance.

 

Ok if we are speaking about me specifically then you still need to show me that the social contract is indeed a legitimate contract. What are its terms? What exactly do I need to do in order to sign it either implicitly or explicitly?

[CILONE/SK]

This is pure comedy. Your whole argument is based on the fact that you never actually agreed to the constitution or at least part of it.

 

Even if you are not from America, it just shows that you have zero understanding of the importance of that document or even how it actually works.

 

Is it only the 16th Amendment you do not agree with? Or are there other parts? Do you think that all Americans (the constitution also covers people from other countries within American boundaries) should be able to whatever they want, whenever they want without regards to anything else? I would assume that since you choose to say that the constitution is illegitimate, then all other laws and lesser documents would be just as illegitimate, which would mean no laws or public services.

 

hahaha, you called me a moron, when you are the moronic hypocrite who wants to pick and choose what part of the constitution needs to be followed (or should it all not be followed according to you?).

 

1st amendment dumb ass, even idiots like you from other countries, are able to voice their moronic thoughts without fear of being censored. hahaha

 

Again, good job hahaha

[angelofdeath]

i know you refuse to accept any social contract argument and view any government action as initial force so i'll just settle with we completely disagree on taxes being robbery or theft of any sort, and that slavery and restrictions are absolutely not the same thing.

 

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.

 

 

you don't get a bullet in your head if you don't pay taxes, there is no reason to use such extreme wording as an attempt to reinforce a supposed atrocious nature.

 

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.

 

i didn't argue what the mafia sells, i argued the point of mafia protection--would legalizing extortion make that problem go away?

 

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.

 

a mafia is an organization operating in a market without concern for external regulation, how does that compare to a somewhat democratic government? or is your selective and wavering description of the government limited to "people that have power and force over me?"

 

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?'

 

i agree most of our politicians are crooks and bastards, calling me a government supremacist is hilarious, is that some neat propaganda term for 'statists' that you use when you really need to up the ante?

 

government supremacist is a quite accurate term to use on someone if they think that government isnt slavery and it isnt force.

[angelofdeath]

Remember, using extremes is the only way he can clearly explain his point (he's admitted so before). The subtle workings of the real world are terribly inconvenient and too messy for making clear enough sense.

 

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.

[angelofdeath]

just because you dont think it is legitimate makes no difference. I could argue that murder is illegitimate and that they are infringing on my liberty to murder.

 

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.

 

whatever happens taxes ARE legitimate, if you resist arrest and use a firearm doing it then you risk getting shot, that isnt government tyranny that is breaking the law and then being an idiot about it

 

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?

[angelofdeath]

5. i think the basis of my disagreement with all things libertarian, or whatever kind of anarchist you are, is the social contract issue. it seems to be the baseline of all of your arguments and stances and i simply don't accept it as a legitimate complaint.

 

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

[CILONE/SK]

This is still continuing with the laughs.

 

People arguing in a Ron Paul thread about how taxes are illegitimate and are taking freedoms away.

 

Do any of you realize that taxes are in the constitution and that Ron Paul is 100% for the constitution?

 

Regardless of what I think about Ron Paul, this taxes arguement does not apply to this thread and is actually an argument against Ron Paul's beliefs (also all the other candidates).

 

Keep up the good work with the ronnie paulie revolution. Hahahaha

[Decyferon]

you walk down the street at night and the lights are on, you are benefitting from government, not to mention they would be looking after the sidewalks and roads.

 

You use any of the services provided by the government then you are agreeing to the contract.

 

I dont believe that libertarians are after freedom it is more about greed as far as I can see they dont want to contribute to the society they live in and have benefitted from.

 

Not to mention that as CIL says taxes are written into the constitution. So avoidance of taxes just comes down to greed or selfishness as far as I can see.

[Decyferon]

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?

 

But you have broken the law by not paying said taxes and are threrefore forfeiting your freedom. Robbers robbing me are breaking the law, government taxing me aren't

[angelofdeath]

you walk down the street at night and the lights are on, you are benefitting from government, not to mention they would be looking after the sidewalks and roads.

 

You use any of the services provided by the government then you are agreeing to the contract.

 

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 dont believe that libertarians are after freedom it is more about greed as far as I can see they dont want to contribute to the society they live in and have benefitted from.

 

Not to mention that as CIL says taxes are written into the constitution. So avoidance of taxes just comes down to greed or selfishness as far as I can see.

 

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.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD is a hypocrite and only backs the constitution when it suits him. A great example of this is that he 100% supports the 2d amendment, yet he does not even acknowledge the 16th Amendment. Hypocrite.

[angelofdeath]

But you have broken the law by not paying said taxes and are threrefore forfeiting your freedom. Robbers robbing me are breaking the law, government taxing me aren't

 

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

[Decyferon]

I dont see why the rich shouldnt pay a higher percentage of tax than the poor, the poor still pay taxes (unless they are so poor they fall below tax brackets) I would have no problem if I was a multimillionaire or even billionaire why I shouldnt contribute more to help in society.

 

I know YOU may want to be charitable but most people are not as I have stated numerous times before we would not be better off if we just relied on charitable causes.

 

You might not want the government to run the roads and lights etc I would rather that than private business. Private business has no moral obligation, no society to think of just profits that is why they shouldnt be involved in the public sector like lighting and roads etc

[Decyferon]

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, 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

 

Well I smoke weed and have been arrested for it before, I understand the implications of choosing to break that law and will face the consequences if they come, I wont however end up in a stand off and getting shot by the police for resisting arrest because im not stupid. It wouldnt be the law against weed that killed me, it would be my recklessness in approaching the police fully armed and resisting arrest.

 

There will alwas be laws people disagree with, you can either fight to get them changed or take the chance and risk the consequences, but can hardly go crying to anyone when you do end up arrested for breaking the law. You know the laws in your land, if you rob a house you get arrested if you smoke weed you get arrested if you paint graffiti you get arrested, I only agree with one of those laws but still take my chances and if caught will face the consequence.

 

Resorting to arguements about nazi occupation etc just ruin your arguements, that wasnt a normal society it was a crazed genocidal dictatorship.

[angelofdeath]

I dont see why the rich shouldnt pay a higher percentage of tax than the poor, the poor still pay taxes (unless they are so poor they fall below tax brackets) I would have no problem if I was a multimillionaire or even billionaire why I shouldnt contribute more to help in society.

 

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.

 

You might not want the government to run the roads and lights etc I would rather that than private business. Private business has no moral obligation, no society to think of just profits that is why they shouldnt be involved in the public sector like lighting and roads etc

 

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?

[angelofdeath]

I wont however end up in a stand off and getting shot by the police for resisting arrest because im not stupid. It wouldnt be the law against weed that killed me, it would be my recklessness in approaching the police fully armed and resisting arrest.

 

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?

 

Resorting to arguements about nazi occupation etc just ruin your arguements, that wasnt a normal society it was a crazed genocidal dictatorship.

 

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.

[Decyferon]

I dont have a problem with you choosing not to use ANYTHING provided by government, however if you happened to stray into any public space you would be in violation of that agreement, I would love to choose where my tax money goes but I cannot therefore by that same logic if you want to opt out of one thing you have to opt out of them all.

 

I dont see how you would manage to survive because your life would be very difficult not being able to go to any shops or walk down any sidestreet or visiting any public spaces.

[angelofdeath]

I dont have a problem with you choosing not to use ANYTHING provided by government, however if you happened to stray into any public space you would be in violation of that agreement, I would love to choose where my tax money goes but I cannot therefore by that same logic if you want to opt out of one thing you have to opt out of them all.

 

I dont see how you would manage to survive because your life would be very difficult not being able to go to any shops or walk down any sidestreet or visiting any public spaces.

 

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.

[Decyferon]

 

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.

 

I could if I wanted make a stand on my belief like Rosa Parks did, I choose not to, like I said not all laws are right it is how you want to deal with them.

 

Anyway from my point of view the police even if I resisted arrest wouldnt be killing me because we have sensible gun control laws here! (sorry couldn't resist haha)

 

The rape analogy doesnt work either, the rapist is breaking the law to rape you and you are fighting back in self defense, the tax analogy is you have knowingly broken the law and are fighting back against the people who are there to arrest you for breaking the law, you would be the rapist as it would be you breaking the law just like the rapist was.

 

If the police were entering your house on an illegal warrant and yo udefended yourself THAT would be different.

[Decyferon]

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.

 

but with no funding to schools America would not be where it is, you shoose not to have kids but you benefit from the education that other kids are getting and the progresses they make towards advances in thing slike medicine and technology which you DO benfit from.

 

I dont plan on ever joining the military should I not have to pay towards that then?

[El Mamerro]

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.

 

My call for real-world sense against extreme and over-simplified analogies gets met with a repeat of an extreme and over-simplified analogy that doesn't scale up properly. Sorry, not valid.

 

 

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.

 

My point is no matter how much sense it makes, how fundamentally sound the logic may be, when you scale things up to the real world, nuances inevitably creep in that highlight the awful weakness of adhering to views strictly on a fundamental basis.

 

Tailor society strictly to those fundamentals, and you may think things are great cause the basic tenets of freedom are upheld. But in fact the resulting society will most likely feel FAR less free and enabling for the majority of people within it.

[angelofdeath]

I could if I wanted make a stand on my belief like Rosa Parks did, I choose not to, like I said not all laws are right it is how you want to deal with them.

 

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?

 

The rape analogy doesnt work either, the rapist is breaking the law to rape you and you are fighting back in self defense, the tax analogy is you have knowingly broken the law and are fighting back against the people who are there to arrest you for breaking the law, you would be the rapist as it would be you breaking the law just like the rapist was.

 

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.

 

If the police were entering your house on an illegal warrant and yo udefended yourself THAT would be different.

 

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.

[Decyferon]

but you are concerned to what YOU think is justified

 

We both agree rape is wrong, we dont aree on tax - simple as.

 

I am stuck on what is illegal and lega because I live in a world where it matters if things are illegal or not, I am not living a theory because it isn't applicable in the real world we live in.

 

Yea it would be great if I didnt have to pay taxes howver it wouldnt be great if I then had to pay some shitty insurance company for my healthcare who would fuck with the level of cover I have (in the real world I live in everything I want to see the doctor about I can no exculsions) I wouldnt want to have to pay a compnay to light my street lights, I wouldnt want my sons education to be ran but some medical company or soft drink manufacturer. I wouldnt have a choice I would HAVE to pay these things as I need lighting, roads, an education, and I would rather have some kind of say in who actually runs these things.

 

A person does have the right to resist but then they also have to be aware of the consequences like the numerous black rights activists killed or beaten the flip side to Rosa Parks.

[angelofdeath]

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