Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mia · Mar 14, 2004, 06:13 am

?????????

Mar 14, 2004, 10:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If X is raped by Y, X may in turn shoot Y or have a nervous breakdown. The possibilities due to human nature are variable. Your argument assumes it is up to the individual to provide their own justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No where have I asserted that this is the only alternative. In fact I have offered other alternatives.

Your claim was that necesssarily justice does not and cannot exist outside of the state. I offered up examples to demonstrate that in fact justice and injustice exist outside of the state. You then went off on this tangent, falsely accusing me of necessitating that no individuals could ever come together in VOLUNTARY association and handle the issue of justice. What you did not address was the fact that your primary axiom, that justice cannot and does not exist outside the state, had been resoundingly refuted.

With that assumption defeated, all of the assumptions that flowed from it are likewise defeated.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, I asked you for a full presentation of Justice "things" in an Anarchy. A single-paragraph should be enough to describe how Justice would work, and our brains can reach the logical conclusions based on the System or Whatever you define.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Been there, done that, even alluded to it again in my query. Many alternatives would exist: Insurance, Protection companies, internal justice "systems" within voluntary groups, etc..

But let us be fair. It appears that you are dismissing any possibility, all alternatives that are not all of the following:

1. First and foremost run by the state.
2. without the possibility of failure.
3. Complete top down systems.
4. Singular in nature.

Other than the first of these, the current system does not meet these criteria. So the question is loaded, removing alternatives from being considered, but also puts an infinitely higher standard upon alternatives than the status quo.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
#1. I asked that we try to conceive of a better way to do Government
--This does not include/exclude Anarchy, Government, or other possibilities<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is false. Because the question assumes the necessity of the existence of government, it excludes all alternatives.

Your #2 objections are merely your stipulations repeated. This does not make them true, nor reasonable.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
#3. I am not demanding Anarchy be perfect by my standards
--I am asking that all the imperfections be addressed
--I am asking that likely solutions and outcomes be noted
--I demand Anarchy provide Justice before I will accept it as viable
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you see the irony of your first objection here? You are saying that you are not requiring liberty to be perfect, as long as it is perfect.

The second objection has been met several times.

The third I have shown to be an impossible criteria to meet, as you have loaded up what you will count as justice (even shows in your use of caps) with the notion of the state. You have stipulated that justice cannot and does not exist outside of the state. I have proven that in fact justice can and does exist outside of the state, and your response thus far has been to employ diversionary tactics ignoring the refutation of this primary premise.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
#4. You claim that Anarchy has not been disproven as a viable alternative
--You still favor Anarchy despite it's inherent flaws
--You demand justification for the actions of the state
----i.e. actions which the state has no business doing in the first place
----Flaws in opposing ideas do not determine the validity of one's own ideas<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your first objection here is purely question begging. You determine what counts as a flaw by comparing it to government and anywhere freedom is not government you claim it is flawed. When you have your heart set on the answer being government, and do not allow for any other possibilities, you are not reasoning.

Yes of course we must have justifications for the violations of the moral rights of individuals. Would you have it otherwise? Or are you for giving the state carte blache to continue to take any action against innocent individuals, to continue to control the lives of peaceful individuals, to in essence assume ownership over peaceful individuals, while judging all alternatives by an impossible standard?

The validity of my arguments is determined by reason. The irony here is that you are falling back to the extreme pro-government merely because you pretend to find flaws with anarchy, but you have not offered anything that resembles a defense of the injustice of governments. So your criticism falls upon your own shoulders.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, it's recognized by YOU that the state's claim is bogus<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you would not only accept and hail ANYONE's claim to own you, as long as they claimed to be a government, but you would furthermore proclaim that any such claims are wholly and instantly justified without any examination or reason?

We have gone through this before, but it deserves another quick look.

You own yourself.
You alone can determine what is best for you.
You alone can give your time and labor as you see fit.
Aggression against innocent moral agents is unjust.
Causing harm, limiting freedom, denying pleasure, causing pain, to innocent moral agents is unjust.

Government denies ALL of these, violates EACH of these, and encourages others to do the same. Furthermore it does this most strongly against those who do not lend to it the appearance of legitimacy. Coercion is the tool of the state, and merely because it uses the label of government you would have us simply blindly and wholly accept that the state has some higher right to our lives than we do ourselves.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Perhaps part of the problem is that you are approaching it as an antagonistic endeavor rather than a cooperative one. Discussions ought to move all participants forward, not tear one down.

Bad ideas defeat themselves. Anarchy is your idea. So if you want to sell it, then get cracking. You can start by honestly calling it what it is, instead of hiding behind the term Liberty. Misleading customers is bad sales. I had no idea you were advocating Anarchy until I finally discerned it out of your context. Also, attacking other people's products is not an effective way to sell yours...especially when yours is just as defunct to the customer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Question begging red herring. I use synonyms interchangeable, if you do not liek function of the language then take it up with the supreme language government..:) But wait, we have language liberty.. we have language anarchy..

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If you honestly called Anarchy by it's own word instead of using Liberty...
If you rationally concluded Anarchy is no better than Bad Government...
If you reasonably didn't attack all forms of Government as equal...
If you were critical about Anarchy...
...then I might take you seriously.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I could not possibly care less what you think of me as a person. Taking ideas and arguments seriously, on their own merits is a selfish and beneficial act that leads one closer to truth, so choose it or not.

I have been consistently honest and accurate in my word choice.

Your second demand is absurd, for you are simply stipulating that despite the clear refutations that have been offered, I should ignore all the evidence, all reason, and simply accept blindly your claims and assumptions. This is not the path of reason, nor is it an intellectually honest tactic.

Unlike you, I have indeed been willing to be critical of freedom. I did not put forth any utopian vision. I did not promise that all will be milk and honey. I did not state that no harms would ever come to anyone, in fact I stated explicitly that things would not be perfect, and still I easily offered refutations of the statist position, and noted that liberty is the only just alternative by its very nature.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Just because I object to anarchy doesn't mean I favor uncontrolled government. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line, but it better work this time. The way I see it, both are just as flawed; and share the same flaws.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1. Who is going to control this government? The Constitution did not and does not stop the US government from taking any and all actions that those in power desire to take.

2. Upon what basis is this control to be granted to this meta-government? Or to government itself?

3. Upon what do you dismiss the inherent value of the individual and of liberty?

4. How do you equate known intentional harm with the possibility of unintended harm?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You can choose to abandon rational ideas, but I prefer them myself.

Oh man, I'm so interested in Anarchy now that I'm stupid for not doing so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I did not call you stupid. You stated that you wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, and reason, and I simply took you at your word. I consider the choice to be ill advised, but I cannot offer an argument for that conclusion because in doing so I would be employing the tools you have denied as valuable.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Did you also catch the irony in this? On one hand you simply stipulate that no alternatives can be considered, and then you tell people to be creative.. Smoke and mirrors...

Did you catch the irony in this? How are you going to sell an idea rationally if you call me stupid?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, notice that I did not in fact call you stupid at any point. I pointed out that you were making contradictory claims, and that this lead to irony. Irony is not stupidity. Socrates reminded us thousands of years ago that ideas are not our children, we ought not treat them as such. What he was getting at was the reacting emotionally to ideas and arguments serves no good purpose. When we treat ideas as ideas, when we approach discussions rationally, reasonably we can progress, we can gain knowledge and learn truth.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I completely acknowledged that the whole schema seems to be designed to be an impossibility. I ask you again to quote where I stipulated that "alternatives" (meaning Anarchy) cannot be considered. According to the objective criticism I've given it in this thread, it must have been considered at some point...ya think? This "you aint listenin to me" whining is absurd, childish, and absolutely refuted.

Remember, you can always refute my conclusions with the Truth. If you can prove Justice can exist within Anarchy, then you are fully capable of winning this argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your first and second statements are in direct conflict. Also, I have repeatedly shown where and how you have stipulated that no alternatives to the state are to be considered. I have done so in this response already so I will consider this question most thoroughly answered.

There is no place for the insults. You may want to peruse the etiquette section.

A government claims sole authority to the use of force over a given geographical region. All within that region are subject (through the use of force, not legitimacy) to the wrath of this government.

Mia · Mar 14, 2004, 04:56 pm

You may want to peruse the etiquette section.

"This is important. All too often people state their opinion in such an absolute manner that it’s seen as fact rather than opinion. I know this is basic, but it’s the cause of most of the personal issues anywhere. Try to be considerate of your audience and remind them that it’s just your opinion".

Mar 14, 2004, 06:09 pm

I will certainly do that Mia, WHEN I state an opinion rather than objective facts. Fortunately what I have offered here is all verifiable and based squarely upon reason, thus avoiding the necessity of baseless opinining.

Kyran · Mar 15, 2004, 10:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
No where have I asserted that this is the only alternative. In fact I have offered other alternatives.

Your claim was that necesssarily justice does not and cannot exist outside of the state. I offered up examples to demonstrate that in fact justice and injustice exist outside of the state. You then went off on this tangent, falsely accusing me of necessitating that no individuals could ever come together in VOLUNTARY association and handle the issue of justice. What you did not address was the fact that your primary axiom, that justice cannot and does not exist outside the state, had been resoundingly refuted.

With that assumption defeated, all of the assumptions that flowed from it are likewise defeated.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes and I'll do it again, watch:
Justice does not exist without Law and Authority.

Let me make this easier on you. If you objected that Authority can be given to others voluntarily, and therefore exist outside the state, then I would have to agree and you would win the argument. This seems to be what you're trying to say, but you tack on all these extra logical deductions as if they support your argument.

By one being able to give Authority to others freely, the sky is the limit for new principalities and powers being formed. On an optimistic note, one might find the ability to choose Governments as a great advancement of modern man. You could join a socialist empire or a theocracy or a republic or not join anything.

But let's be realistic. One agency that "protects" 50,000 people with a Justice system never gets consent of X to obey their rules; so when he steals or kills one of their voluntary members, the agency extends it's authority to this criminal.

No big deal so far, but then we get a corrupt agency that "protects" 50,000 people from "hate speech." To stay in business, this agency also extends it's authority to anyone who may commit a crime against "their people."

Is it rational to postulate that every murderer and thief is going to join one of these agencies? I think not, so my examples target this specifically.

There you go. The "voluntary association" is as much government as the state. Only law-abiding people are going to join those things. Murderers are not APT to respect anybody's rights, hence not belong to them, and therefore the Agency by nature extends Rule to all.

This creates a multi-government scenario where everyone has to respect the laws and regulations of every agency in place. Suppose you belong to agency X and I belong to agency Y; how are strangers going to know we belong to those agencies? Do you see the huge problems this brings?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Been there, done that, even alluded to it again in my query. Many alternatives would exist: Insurance, Protection companies, internal justice "systems" within voluntary groups, etc..<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Don't forget Facist empires which the KKK will form. I can't wait till my neighbors break the Law by being black in a "white-only" neighborhood! I can imagine the lovely alternatives.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Your first objection here is purely question begging. You determine what counts as a flaw by comparing it to government and anywhere freedom is not government you claim it is flawed. When you have your heart set on the answer being government, and do not allow for any other possibilities, you are not reasoning.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wrong. I weigh the flaws of Anarchy and where Anarchy allows Government I claim Problem.

I'm not reasoning? I asked you to describe the key elements of government, so that we may take an objective approach to limiting government. No Government (anarchy) does not stop the KKK from starting their empire. It doesn't stop ANYBODY from creating government. That means it fails the test of national soverignty.

I've told you over and over that the Truth is paramount to my opinion. Sadly, when the Truth opposes your blind faith in Anarchy, and that faith does not allow for any other possibilities, you ignore the facts. This closed-minded approach is incongruent with reason; you are not weighing the pros and cons of Anarchy but are absolutely sure government is no better despite 2000+ years of human history. What's worse is you don't accept the idea that government can protect liberties. The KKK is not taking over America, and Uncle Sam makes sure of that.

The cold Truth is that Populists hate government just as much as you; for completely different reasons. You don't want to be ruled over, and they want government out of the way so that they can rule over you. They detest the monopolization of force when they aren't running it. Somebody out there is pitching a kiddie FIT because they can't send armed troopers into every abortion clinic to shoot the doctors.

This matter is settled. I have examined the benefits and consequences of Anarchy. My conclusion is that a monopolization of force is fundamental to maintaining Liberty, Justice, and keeping evil from obtaining Free Power to the detriment of Individual Rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
The validity of my arguments is determined by reason. The irony here is that you are falling back to the extreme pro-government merely because you pretend to find flaws with anarchy, but you have not offered anything that resembles a defense of the injustice of governments. So your criticism falls upon your own shoulders.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Who's pretending? Again, you demand me answer for the injustice of governments which has nothing to do with Anarchy. I am not advocating any injustice or any unjust system, nor am I apt to support a system that definitely will not protect the rights of individuals. I merely leave the door open to the concept that government Can do these things, whereas you are convinced it cannot. This "can or cannot" is the root of your argument.

Unless you are omniscient, then you should refrain from proclaiming "government cannot etc. etc."

Try not to assert my opinions for me.

Let's take a different approach. Perhaps you can realize the parallel of seeing government as evil to christianity seeing sin as evil. Anarchy would translate to "no sin." Freedom and Liberty from Sin would logically add up to this cause. But if we destroy the Sin Institution of Today, what would we be free from? The door is still open for the next Sin Capital to rise up among the sinners who will form them to allow Sin to reign supreme.

So am I really advocating Sin?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
I use synonyms interchangeable, if you do not liek function of the language then take it up with the supreme language government..:) But wait, we have language liberty.. we have language anarchy..<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you do not like the fact that others misunderstand you, speak english instead of anarchist. You're free to be an asshole if that's what suits you. Good luck finding truth through irrational unfriendliness.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
I could not possibly care less what you think of me as a person. Taking ideas and arguments seriously, on their own merits is a selfish and beneficial act that leads one closer to truth, so choose it or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Save yourself some time. Your feelings don't need the extra advertisement. I am quite aware of what you care about.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
I have been consistently honest and accurate in my word choice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

In your eyes sure. What good is it? If you want to get your point across, be clear. Otherwise you are speaking your own language.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Unlike you, I have indeed been willing to be critical of freedom.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

LOL. First I'm rejecting anarchy, then I'm NOT being critical of it? It's a good thing you aren't charging me for the BS you give me. I'd need two credit cards. Do I need to quote where I've been critical of Anarchy to prove my statement?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
I did not put forth any utopian vision. I did not promise that all will be milk and honey. I did not state that no harms would ever come to anyone, in fact I stated explicitly that things would not be perfect, and still I easily offered refutations of the statist position, and noted that liberty is the only just alternative by its very nature.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I didn't say you did or had to. I just don't see Anarchy maintaining itself for any reason whatsoever. This is Why it isn't viable to me.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
I did not call you stupid. You stated that you wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, and reason, and I simply took you at your word.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Don't put words in my mouth! I did not state that I wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, or reason. This is a lie. I don't find Anarchy rational, I don't see evidence in history contrary to my opinion, and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. It is your opinion that Anarchy is rational, and you are trying to make me out to be an idiot by lying: stating I said I wanted to abandon a RATIONAL idea.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Again, notice that I did not in fact call you stupid at any point. I pointed out that you were making contradictory claims, and that this lead to irony. Irony is not stupidity. Socrates reminded us thousands of years ago that ideas are not our children, we ought not treat them as such. What he was getting at was the reacting emotionally to ideas and arguments serves no good purpose. When we treat ideas as ideas, when we approach discussions rationally, reasonably we can progress, we can gain knowledge and learn truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, in fact, you did call me stupid. Telling me that I am abandoning rational ideas is accusing me of being irrational; which is what stupid implies. I am abandoning failed ideas. Truth does not fail EVER. Furthermore, my conclusion that "Anarchy is a failed concept" is based upon this discussion. I did consider it, contrary to your false claims that I wasn't gonna.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Your first and second statements are in direct conflict. Also, I have repeatedly shown where and how you have stipulated that no alternatives to the state are to be considered. I have done so in this response already so I will consider this question most thoroughly answered.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, you have repeatedly SAID I stipulated no alternatives to the state are to be considered. Your failure to quote me doesn't back up your assertion either. Speaking of failures, in this quote...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
2. without the possibility of failure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You expect me to accept ideas regardless of the success potential thereof? How about NO. I do care whether the proposed concepts will work or not. This doesn't shut the door on Anarchy if it can overcome these problems.

To make a long post short, be nice. I don't deserve your bad attitude and I'm not gonna put up with it. You've degenerated into lying about my dialogue. That's a poor position. Continuing to attempt to prove "your logic is better than mine" is unnecessarily hostile. I didn't come to this thread to fight you. I've got better things to do than be insulted and to be told what I'm saying. So starting giving a flying flip or I'm going to show you the attention I show Jehovah's Witnesses.

Anarchist Patriot · Mar 19, 2004, 09:09 am

I see all property as being theft myself.

Mar 19, 2004, 09:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Justice does not exist without Law and Authority.

Let me make this easier on you. If you objected that Authority can be given to others voluntarily, and therefore exist outside the state, then I would have to agree and you would win the argument. This seems to be what you're trying to say, but you tack on all these extra logical deductions as if they support your argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

LOL!!

You seem to be assuming that justice must be dictated by some body of persons, depsite the many examples that have already been given that conclusively demonstrate that in fact justice is not dependent upon any individual or group.

As for deductive reasoning being unnecessary, all I can say is that thank goodness that we have not adopted that attitude since the dark ages!

I fail to understand how you can pretend that there is a voluntary nature to governments, when governments claim absolute authority over all in any given geographic region.

Your mischaracterization of protection agencies is so grossly absurd that at this point I would simply recommend that you read at least one account of who they could work. Nozick's is quite readable, though perhaps not as thorough since his goals are more philosophical.

The truly strange thing is that assertion that since some would not join the agencies, that then these agencies must be governments...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Don't forget Facist empires which the KKK will form. I can't wait till my neighbors break the Law by being black in a "white-only" neighborhood! I can imagine the lovely alternatives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

While your comments are absurd here as well, let us asume for a moment that a group decided that they do not want whites on their land. Okay.. and?? Should you be prevented from living on your own land as you see fit? So what if you are a racist?

And could we have a single standard? Look to governments around the world and across time. It is commonplace for governments, including that of the US, to treat minorities as property or otherwise less than human. In the US alone this occurs to blacks, Chinese, all other asians... So since your governments simply centralize and increase the power to do this harm, and have shown that governments are on the verge of being eager to cause such harm, you cannot pretend that this criticism somehow makes freedom a worse choice than the aggression of the state.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That means it fails the test of national soverignty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Maybe you are sincerely missing the point. Of course freedom fails to be a government. Of course there is no national state. Of course power is not centralized. And of course demanding that anarchy must be a governemnt is an absurd question begging criteria.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I've told you over and over that the Truth is paramount to my opinion. Sadly, when the Truth opposes your blind faith in Anarchy, and that faith does not allow for any other possibilities, you ignore the facts<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

THis is simply dishonest of you. I notice that you fail to offer any evidence of this claim. But why not settle this objectively and immediately? Go seek out another qualified objective critque of the arguments provided I have nothing to fear from such evaluation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You're free to be an asshole if that's what suits you. Good luck finding truth through irrational unfriendliness.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I believe that you make your character evident here as well as your intent with these posts. You need to read the ettiquette section: http://www.volconvo.com/etiquette.htm

You have not demostrated that the sound refutations that have been offered are irrational, nor have you or can you offer any evidence that I have been in your unfounded opinion, an "asshole." That you resort to personal attacks speaks volumes of your fear concerning this religiously held beliefs which have been resoundingly and objectively refuted. By all means seek out qualified objective independent confirmation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I have been consistently honest and accurate in my word choice.

In your eyes sure. What good is it? If you want to get your point across, be clear. Otherwise you are speaking your own language.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Since you are denying all that is before you merely because it resoundingly refutes what are clearly dearly held beliefs, and because I am very careful in my word choice, as well as a great deal of experience in honest, civil, intellectual discussions, your criticisms obviously fall far from the mark. But as with all of this discussion, by all means seek out independent qualified objective evaluation. I welcome it. The meaning of the words used, is quite simply and quite obviously not a matter of opinion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Don't put words in my mouth! I did not state that I wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, or reason. This is a lie. I don't find Anarchy rational, I don't see evidence in history contrary to my opinion, and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. It is your opinion that Anarchy is rational, and you are trying to make me out to be an idiot by lying: stating I said I wanted to abandon a RATIONAL idea.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have demonstrated that in fact you have adopted positions and made claims that necessitate abandoning reason and evidence. The rational individual would at that point, abandon those positions and claims, but rather than choosing this action, or seeking independent confirmation, you simply insulted me and made other personal attacks. This is the ad hominem tactic, which is of course a logical fallacy.

Now as to lying, I do not practice it. Furthermore you would have to know my intention in order to make such a claim, and have it be true. The fact is that I have no intention to deceive, a primary criteria for lying, nor have I offered false claims, another criteria for lying. I have not called you stupid, nor insulted your person in any way.

I would strongly recommed Wendy McElroy's The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival. In it you can discover the difference between ideas and emotions, as well as separating emotion from your positions such that you do not take the criticism of some argument of position you adopt, from insults to yoru person.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, in fact, you did call me stupid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again this is quite simply dishonest. You have not and cannot cite a single instance where I have called you any names at all, including "stupid." As Socrates reminds us, Ideas are not our children we ought not treat them as such. Do not take the criticism of ideas, arguments etc, as personal attacks for they are not.

You see this is the difference between your calling me a liar, and asshole, etc, and my refuting your claims and arguments. Where I have addressed the issues, claims and arguments only, you have attacked me as a person and claimed insult because I am able and willing to refute ideas that you hold dear.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Continuing to attempt to prove "your logic is better than mine" is unnecessarily hostile. I didn't come to this thread to fight you. I've got better things to do than be insulted and to be told what I'm saying. So starting giving a flying flip or I'm going to show you the attention I show Jehovah's Witnesses.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, this is not a contest where one wins only at the expense of another. Sever your emotional attachment from the ideas and issues. Logic is not dependent upon any individual. It is a tool, and it is singular. The only way to lose is to abandon civility, intellectual honesty, and reason. In cases where one chooses to call another an asshole, liar, etc then both lose. The only way for any to win, is to remain civil, honest, and reasonable. You must be willing to examine the ideas objectively, allowing that in fact your beliefs may be mistaken.

These ideas are not sacred, nor are they profane. If your emotional attachment is too strong, or if your animosity towards me as a person is too strong, then by all means seek out independent, qualified, objective evaluation.

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 06:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
Mia, you're almost right.

THere is no way that any ideology can justify someone controling someone else. Anarchy is the only one that doesn't advocate this. Thus, by the process of elimination, it is the only one you can choose without taking away rights of others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, anarchy takes away the rights of the people who want government and all the things that come with it.

Mar 30, 2004, 09:01 am

Mia, that is simply not true. The only thing that anarchy "takes away" is the "right" to control the lives of others. Nothing more. SInce no such right exists, nor could exist, no rights at all are lost.

If you want to get together with others and form voluntary associations you are free to do so.

i6r6s6 · Apr 4, 2004, 09:08 pm

There are only two [2] CLASSes of taxes:

1. DIRECT

2. INDIRECT

The "NATURE" of a Direct tax is either a CAPITATION tax, or a PROPERTY tax

The "NATURE" of an Indirect tax is either an EXCISE tax, an IMPOST tax, or a DUTY. [since there is very little difference between them the words EXCISE, DUTY, and IMPOST are sometimes used interchangeably.]

The "SUBJECT" [or, the 'things' which are taxed] of a Direct tax are: PEOPLE or PROPETY. [nouns]

The "SUBJECT" [or the 'things' which are taxed] of an Indirect tax are: ACTIVITIES, EVENTS, HAPPENINGS, OR OCCASIONS. [actions or verbs]

Requirements for constitutional taxation:

ALL Direct taxes MUST be APPORTIONED. ALL, not just some, or most, or, except, but EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!

ALL Indirect taxes MUST be UNIFORM. ALL, not just some, or most, or, with the exception of, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!

Q: What is the Subject of the, so-called, "income" tax? [that is, what is the government taxing?]

STATEMENT: Most people who file income taxes believe it is their income/paycheck/money/property.

Let's find out what they neglected to teach us in the government's schools...

If the govt was taxing our paycheck/money/income that would fall under the Subject of PROPERTY [since our 'income' is not People, nor is it an Event - the only three (3) Subjects (or, 'things')which congress is authorized to tax.]

If the govt was taxing our PROPERTY [income] that would place it under the CLASS of a DIRECT tax.

What is the constitutional requirement for a Direct tax? It MUST BE PROPORTIONED!

Q: Is the, so-called, "income" tax Proportioned? ['Proportioned' means that after each ten (10) year national census is taken, the govt knows what percentage of the total population of the U.S. lives in each state. That state is then responsible for their percentage of the amount of money that congress says it needs.]

STATEMENT: The, so-called, "income" tax is not Apportioned. [it is Uniform in that no matter in what state you work, you pay "x" amount of taxes if your income is "y" (disregarding deductions).]

If the, so-called, "income" tax is applied UNIFORMly then it is not a DIRECT tax but is, instead, an INDIRECT tax.

If the, so-called, "income" tax is an INdirect tax then the federal govt, vis-a-vis the Internal Revenue is NOT taxing our "incomes"!

STATEMENT: The federal govt is NOT taxing our incomes. The, so-called, "income" tax is an INdiect EXCISE tax on an ACTIVITY that an individual is performiming that congress has specifically - and legally - taxed for the purpose of collecting revenue. An individual who legally must pay an "income" tax is an individual who is working in a Revenue Taxable Activity. This individual fulfills the very strict and narrow, legal description of a "TAXPAYER", as that term ["taxpayer"] is defined in the int. rev. code book, and in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States. That is, "...a person who...is subject to pay his own personal income tax."

Q: Where, in the int. rev. code book, [if at all] does it show where you have been made subject to pay your own personal income tax because it states that the Activity in which you are engaged has been legally taxed by congress for the purpose of collecting revenue - and is not a RIGHT which congress has no authority given it by the Constitution to tax?!

EXAMPLE: Two [2] examples that you will be able to find that congress has the legal authority to tax for the purpose of collecting revenue are:

26 U.S.C. 5005(a), and, 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1) [do you remember the phrase, "sin taxes"?]

LAST QUESTION: Where is it shown, if at all, in the int. rev. code book that you are engaged in a Revenue Taxable Activity such that you would fall under the authority of the internal revenue?

(p.s. do not cite the 16th Amendment unless you can show where it, unlike the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th, has repealed Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and A1, S8, C1, and, 1,9,4, of the United States Constitution.]

Mar 14, 2004, 06:13 am	#181 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	????????? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 14, 2004, 10:57 am	#182 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If X is raped by Y, X may in turn shoot Y or have a nervous breakdown. The possibilities due to human nature are variable. Your argument assumes it is up to the individual to provide their own justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No where have I asserted that this is the only alternative. In fact I have offered other alternatives. Your claim was that necesssarily justice does not and cannot exist outside of the state. I offered up examples to demonstrate that in fact justice and injustice exist outside of the state. You then went off on this tangent, falsely accusing me of necessitating that no individuals could ever come together in VOLUNTARY association and handle the issue of justice. What you did not address was the fact that your primary axiom, that justice cannot and does not exist outside the state, had been resoundingly refuted. With that assumption defeated, all of the assumptions that flowed from it are likewise defeated. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, I asked you for a full presentation of Justice "things" in an Anarchy. A single-paragraph should be enough to describe how Justice would work, and our brains can reach the logical conclusions based on the System or Whatever you define.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Been there, done that, even alluded to it again in my query. Many alternatives would exist: Insurance, Protection companies, internal justice "systems" within voluntary groups, etc.. But let us be fair. It appears that you are dismissing any possibility, all alternatives that are not all of the following: 1. First and foremost run by the state. 2. without the possibility of failure. 3. Complete top down systems. 4. Singular in nature. Other than the first of these, the current system does not meet these criteria. So the question is loaded, removing alternatives from being considered, but also puts an infinitely higher standard upon alternatives than the status quo. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by #1. I asked that we try to conceive of a better way to do Government --This does not include/exclude Anarchy, Government, or other possibilities<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is false. Because the question assumes the necessity of the existence of government, it excludes all alternatives. Your #2 objections are merely your stipulations repeated. This does not make them true, nor reasonable. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by #3. I am not demanding Anarchy be perfect by my standards --I am asking that all the imperfections be addressed --I am asking that likely solutions and outcomes be noted --I demand Anarchy provide Justice before I will accept it as viable <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you see the irony of your first objection here? You are saying that you are not requiring liberty to be perfect, as long as it is perfect. The second objection has been met several times. The third I have shown to be an impossible criteria to meet, as you have loaded up what you will count as justice (even shows in your use of caps) with the notion of the state. You have stipulated that justice cannot and does not exist outside of the state. I have proven that in fact justice can and does exist outside of the state, and your response thus far has been to employ diversionary tactics ignoring the refutation of this primary premise. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by #4. You claim that Anarchy has not been disproven as a viable alternative --You still favor Anarchy despite it's inherent flaws --You demand justification for the actions of the state ----i.e. actions which the state has no business doing in the first place ----Flaws in opposing ideas do not determine the validity of one's own ideas<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your first objection here is purely question begging. You determine what counts as a flaw by comparing it to government and anywhere freedom is not government you claim it is flawed. When you have your heart set on the answer being government, and do not allow for any other possibilities, you are not reasoning. Yes of course we must have justifications for the violations of the moral rights of individuals. Would you have it otherwise? Or are you for giving the state carte blache to continue to take any action against innocent individuals, to continue to control the lives of peaceful individuals, to in essence assume ownership over peaceful individuals, while judging all alternatives by an impossible standard? The validity of my arguments is determined by reason. The irony here is that you are falling back to the extreme pro-government merely because you pretend to find flaws with anarchy, but you have not offered anything that resembles a defense of the injustice of governments. So your criticism falls upon your own shoulders. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, it's recognized by YOU that the state's claim is bogus<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you would not only accept and hail ANYONE's claim to own you, as long as they claimed to be a government, but you would furthermore proclaim that any such claims are wholly and instantly justified without any examination or reason? We have gone through this before, but it deserves another quick look. You own yourself. You alone can determine what is best for you. You alone can give your time and labor as you see fit. Aggression against innocent moral agents is unjust. Causing harm, limiting freedom, denying pleasure, causing pain, to innocent moral agents is unjust. Government denies ALL of these, violates EACH of these, and encourages others to do the same. Furthermore it does this most strongly against those who do not lend to it the appearance of legitimacy. Coercion is the tool of the state, and merely because it uses the label of government you would have us simply blindly and wholly accept that the state has some higher right to our lives than we do ourselves. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Perhaps part of the problem is that you are approaching it as an antagonistic endeavor rather than a cooperative one. Discussions ought to move all participants forward, not tear one down. Bad ideas defeat themselves. Anarchy is your idea. So if you want to sell it, then get cracking. You can start by honestly calling it what it is, instead of hiding behind the term Liberty. Misleading customers is bad sales. I had no idea you were advocating Anarchy until I finally discerned it out of your context. Also, attacking other people's products is not an effective way to sell yours...especially when yours is just as defunct to the customer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Question begging red herring. I use synonyms interchangeable, if you do not liek function of the language then take it up with the supreme language government..:) But wait, we have language liberty.. we have language anarchy.. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If you honestly called Anarchy by it's own word instead of using Liberty... If you rationally concluded Anarchy is no better than Bad Government... If you reasonably didn't attack all forms of Government as equal... If you were critical about Anarchy... ...then I might take you seriously.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I could not possibly care less what you think of me as a person. Taking ideas and arguments seriously, on their own merits is a selfish and beneficial act that leads one closer to truth, so choose it or not. I have been consistently honest and accurate in my word choice. Your second demand is absurd, for you are simply stipulating that despite the clear refutations that have been offered, I should ignore all the evidence, all reason, and simply accept blindly your claims and assumptions. This is not the path of reason, nor is it an intellectually honest tactic. Unlike you, I have indeed been willing to be critical of freedom. I did not put forth any utopian vision. I did not promise that all will be milk and honey. I did not state that no harms would ever come to anyone, in fact I stated explicitly that things would not be perfect, and still I easily offered refutations of the statist position, and noted that liberty is the only just alternative by its very nature. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Just because I object to anarchy doesn't mean I favor uncontrolled government. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line, but it better work this time. The way I see it, both are just as flawed; and share the same flaws.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1. Who is going to control this government? The Constitution did not and does not stop the US government from taking any and all actions that those in power desire to take. 2. Upon what basis is this control to be granted to this meta-government? Or to government itself? 3. Upon what do you dismiss the inherent value of the individual and of liberty? 4. How do you equate known intentional harm with the possibility of unintended harm? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You can choose to abandon rational ideas, but I prefer them myself. Oh man, I'm so interested in Anarchy now that I'm stupid for not doing so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I did not call you stupid. You stated that you wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, and reason, and I simply took you at your word. I consider the choice to be ill advised, but I cannot offer an argument for that conclusion because in doing so I would be employing the tools you have denied as valuable. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Did you also catch the irony in this? On one hand you simply stipulate that no alternatives can be considered, and then you tell people to be creative.. Smoke and mirrors... Did you catch the irony in this? How are you going to sell an idea rationally if you call me stupid? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, notice that I did not in fact call you stupid at any point. I pointed out that you were making contradictory claims, and that this lead to irony. Irony is not stupidity. Socrates reminded us thousands of years ago that ideas are not our children, we ought not treat them as such. What he was getting at was the reacting emotionally to ideas and arguments serves no good purpose. When we treat ideas as ideas, when we approach discussions rationally, reasonably we can progress, we can gain knowledge and learn truth. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I completely acknowledged that the whole schema seems to be designed to be an impossibility. I ask you again to quote where I stipulated that "alternatives" (meaning Anarchy) cannot be considered. According to the objective criticism I've given it in this thread, it must have been considered at some point...ya think? This "you aint listenin to me" whining is absurd, childish, and absolutely refuted. Remember, you can always refute my conclusions with the Truth. If you can prove Justice can exist within Anarchy, then you are fully capable of winning this argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your first and second statements are in direct conflict. Also, I have repeatedly shown where and how you have stipulated that no alternatives to the state are to be considered. I have done so in this response already so I will consider this question most thoroughly answered. There is no place for the insults. You may want to peruse the etiquette section. A government claims sole authority to the use of force over a given geographical region. All within that region are subject (through the use of force, not legitimacy) to the wrath of this government.

Mar 14, 2004, 04:56 pm	#183 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	You may want to peruse the etiquette section. "This is important. All too often people state their opinion in such an absolute manner that it’s seen as fact rather than opinion. I know this is basic, but it’s the cause of most of the personal issues anywhere. Try to be considerate of your audience and remind them that it’s just your opinion". "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 15, 2004, 10:15 am	#185 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) No where have I asserted that this is the only alternative. In fact I have offered other alternatives. Your claim was that necesssarily justice does not and cannot exist outside of the state. I offered up examples to demonstrate that in fact justice and injustice exist outside of the state. You then went off on this tangent, falsely accusing me of necessitating that no individuals could ever come together in VOLUNTARY association and handle the issue of justice. What you did not address was the fact that your primary axiom, that justice cannot and does not exist outside the state, had been resoundingly refuted. With that assumption defeated, all of the assumptions that flowed from it are likewise defeated.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes and I'll do it again, watch: Justice does not exist without Law and Authority. Let me make this easier on you. If you objected that Authority can be given to others voluntarily, and therefore exist outside the state, then I would have to agree and you would win the argument. This seems to be what you're trying to say, but you tack on all these extra logical deductions as if they support your argument. By one being able to give Authority to others freely, the sky is the limit for new principalities and powers being formed. On an optimistic note, one might find the ability to choose Governments as a great advancement of modern man. You could join a socialist empire or a theocracy or a republic or not join anything. But let's be realistic. One agency that "protects" 50,000 people with a Justice system never gets consent of X to obey their rules; so when he steals or kills one of their voluntary members, the agency extends it's authority to this criminal. No big deal so far, but then we get a corrupt agency that "protects" 50,000 people from "hate speech." To stay in business, this agency also extends it's authority to anyone who may commit a crime against "their people." Is it rational to postulate that every murderer and thief is going to join one of these agencies? I think not, so my examples target this specifically. There you go. The "voluntary association" is as much government as the state. Only law-abiding people are going to join those things. Murderers are not APT to respect anybody's rights, hence not belong to them, and therefore the Agency by nature extends Rule to all. This creates a multi-government scenario where everyone has to respect the laws and regulations of every agency in place. Suppose you belong to agency X and I belong to agency Y; how are strangers going to know we belong to those agencies? Do you see the huge problems this brings? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Been there, done that, even alluded to it again in my query. Many alternatives would exist: Insurance, Protection companies, internal justice "systems" within voluntary groups, etc..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Don't forget Facist empires which the KKK will form. I can't wait till my neighbors break the Law by being black in a "white-only" neighborhood! I can imagine the lovely alternatives. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Your first objection here is purely question begging. You determine what counts as a flaw by comparing it to government and anywhere freedom is not government you claim it is flawed. When you have your heart set on the answer being government, and do not allow for any other possibilities, you are not reasoning.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wrong. I weigh the flaws of Anarchy and where Anarchy allows Government I claim Problem. I'm not reasoning? I asked you to describe the key elements of government, so that we may take an objective approach to limiting government. No Government (anarchy) does not stop the KKK from starting their empire. It doesn't stop ANYBODY from creating government. That means it fails the test of national soverignty. I've told you over and over that the Truth is paramount to my opinion. Sadly, when the Truth opposes your blind faith in Anarchy, and that faith does not allow for any other possibilities, you ignore the facts. This closed-minded approach is incongruent with reason; you are not weighing the pros and cons of Anarchy but are absolutely sure government is no better despite 2000+ years of human history. What's worse is you don't accept the idea that government can protect liberties. The KKK is not taking over America, and Uncle Sam makes sure of that. The cold Truth is that Populists hate government just as much as you; for completely different reasons. You don't want to be ruled over, and they want government out of the way so that they can rule over you. They detest the monopolization of force when they aren't running it. Somebody out there is pitching a kiddie FIT because they can't send armed troopers into every abortion clinic to shoot the doctors. This matter is settled. I have examined the benefits and consequences of Anarchy. My conclusion is that a monopolization of force is fundamental to maintaining Liberty, Justice, and keeping evil from obtaining Free Power to the detriment of Individual Rights. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) The validity of my arguments is determined by reason. The irony here is that you are falling back to the extreme pro-government merely because you pretend to find flaws with anarchy, but you have not offered anything that resembles a defense of the injustice of governments. So your criticism falls upon your own shoulders.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Who's pretending? Again, you demand me answer for the injustice of governments which has nothing to do with Anarchy. I am not advocating any injustice or any unjust system, nor am I apt to support a system that definitely will not protect the rights of individuals. I merely leave the door open to the concept that government Can do these things, whereas you are convinced it cannot. This "can or cannot" is the root of your argument. Unless you are omniscient, then you should refrain from proclaiming "government cannot etc. etc." Try not to assert my opinions for me. Let's take a different approach. Perhaps you can realize the parallel of seeing government as evil to christianity seeing sin as evil. Anarchy would translate to "no sin." Freedom and Liberty from Sin would logically add up to this cause. But if we destroy the Sin Institution of Today, what would we be free from? The door is still open for the next Sin Capital to rise up among the sinners who will form them to allow Sin to reign supreme. So am I really advocating Sin? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) I use synonyms interchangeable, if you do not liek function of the language then take it up with the supreme language government..:) But wait, we have language liberty.. we have language anarchy..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you do not like the fact that others misunderstand you, speak english instead of anarchist. You're free to be an asshole if that's what suits you. Good luck finding truth through irrational unfriendliness. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) I could not possibly care less what you think of me as a person. Taking ideas and arguments seriously, on their own merits is a selfish and beneficial act that leads one closer to truth, so choose it or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Save yourself some time. Your feelings don't need the extra advertisement. I am quite aware of what you care about. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) I have been consistently honest and accurate in my word choice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In your eyes sure. What good is it? If you want to get your point across, be clear. Otherwise you are speaking your own language. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Unlike you, I have indeed been willing to be critical of freedom.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> LOL. First I'm rejecting anarchy, then I'm NOT being critical of it? It's a good thing you aren't charging me for the BS you give me. I'd need two credit cards. Do I need to quote where I've been critical of Anarchy to prove my statement? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) I did not put forth any utopian vision. I did not promise that all will be milk and honey. I did not state that no harms would ever come to anyone, in fact I stated explicitly that things would not be perfect, and still I easily offered refutations of the statist position, and noted that liberty is the only just alternative by its very nature.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I didn't say you did or had to. I just don't see Anarchy maintaining itself for any reason whatsoever. This is Why it isn't viable to me. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) I did not call you stupid. You stated that you wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, and reason, and I simply took you at your word.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Don't put words in my mouth! I did not state that I wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, or reason. This is a lie. I don't find Anarchy rational, I don't see evidence in history contrary to my opinion, and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. It is your opinion that Anarchy is rational, and you are trying to make me out to be an idiot by lying: stating I said I wanted to abandon a RATIONAL idea. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Again, notice that I did not in fact call you stupid at any point. I pointed out that you were making contradictory claims, and that this lead to irony. Irony is not stupidity. Socrates reminded us thousands of years ago that ideas are not our children, we ought not treat them as such. What he was getting at was the reacting emotionally to ideas and arguments serves no good purpose. When we treat ideas as ideas, when we approach discussions rationally, reasonably we can progress, we can gain knowledge and learn truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, in fact, you did call me stupid. Telling me that I am abandoning rational ideas is accusing me of being irrational; which is what stupid implies. I am abandoning failed ideas. Truth does not fail EVER. Furthermore, my conclusion that "Anarchy is a failed concept" is based upon this discussion. I did consider it, contrary to your false claims that I wasn't gonna. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Your first and second statements are in direct conflict. Also, I have repeatedly shown where and how you have stipulated that no alternatives to the state are to be considered. I have done so in this response already so I will consider this question most thoroughly answered.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, you have repeatedly SAID I stipulated no alternatives to the state are to be considered. Your failure to quote me doesn't back up your assertion either. Speaking of failures, in this quote... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) 2. without the possibility of failure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You expect me to accept ideas regardless of the success potential thereof? How about NO. I do care whether the proposed concepts will work or not. This doesn't shut the door on Anarchy if it can overcome these problems. To make a long post short, be nice. I don't deserve your bad attitude and I'm not gonna put up with it. You've degenerated into lying about my dialogue. That's a poor position. Continuing to attempt to prove "your logic is better than mine" is unnecessarily hostile. I didn't come to this thread to fight you. I've got better things to do than be insulted and to be told what I'm saying. So starting giving a flying flip or I'm going to show you the attention I show Jehovah's Witnesses.

Mar 19, 2004, 09:52 am	#187 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Justice does not exist without Law and Authority. Let me make this easier on you. If you objected that Authority can be given to others voluntarily, and therefore exist outside the state, then I would have to agree and you would win the argument. This seems to be what you're trying to say, but you tack on all these extra logical deductions as if they support your argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> LOL!! You seem to be assuming that justice must be dictated by some body of persons, depsite the many examples that have already been given that conclusively demonstrate that in fact justice is not dependent upon any individual or group. As for deductive reasoning being unnecessary, all I can say is that thank goodness that we have not adopted that attitude since the dark ages! I fail to understand how you can pretend that there is a voluntary nature to governments, when governments claim absolute authority over all in any given geographic region. Your mischaracterization of protection agencies is so grossly absurd that at this point I would simply recommend that you read at least one account of who they could work. Nozick's is quite readable, though perhaps not as thorough since his goals are more philosophical. The truly strange thing is that assertion that since some would not join the agencies, that then these agencies must be governments... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Don't forget Facist empires which the KKK will form. I can't wait till my neighbors break the Law by being black in a "white-only" neighborhood! I can imagine the lovely alternatives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> While your comments are absurd here as well, let us asume for a moment that a group decided that they do not want whites on their land. Okay.. and?? Should you be prevented from living on your own land as you see fit? So what if you are a racist? And could we have a single standard? Look to governments around the world and across time. It is commonplace for governments, including that of the US, to treat minorities as property or otherwise less than human. In the US alone this occurs to blacks, Chinese, all other asians... So since your governments simply centralize and increase the power to do this harm, and have shown that governments are on the verge of being eager to cause such harm, you cannot pretend that this criticism somehow makes freedom a worse choice than the aggression of the state. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That means it fails the test of national soverignty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Maybe you are sincerely missing the point. Of course freedom fails to be a government. Of course there is no national state. Of course power is not centralized. And of course demanding that anarchy must be a governemnt is an absurd question begging criteria. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I've told you over and over that the Truth is paramount to my opinion. Sadly, when the Truth opposes your blind faith in Anarchy, and that faith does not allow for any other possibilities, you ignore the facts<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> THis is simply dishonest of you. I notice that you fail to offer any evidence of this claim. But why not settle this objectively and immediately? Go seek out another qualified objective critque of the arguments provided I have nothing to fear from such evaluation. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You're free to be an asshole if that's what suits you. Good luck finding truth through irrational unfriendliness.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I believe that you make your character evident here as well as your intent with these posts. You need to read the ettiquette section: http://www.volconvo.com/etiquette.htm You have not demostrated that the sound refutations that have been offered are irrational, nor have you or can you offer any evidence that I have been in your unfounded opinion, an "asshole." That you resort to personal attacks speaks volumes of your fear concerning this religiously held beliefs which have been resoundingly and objectively refuted. By all means seek out qualified objective independent confirmation. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I have been consistently honest and accurate in my word choice. In your eyes sure. What good is it? If you want to get your point across, be clear. Otherwise you are speaking your own language.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Since you are denying all that is before you merely because it resoundingly refutes what are clearly dearly held beliefs, and because I am very careful in my word choice, as well as a great deal of experience in honest, civil, intellectual discussions, your criticisms obviously fall far from the mark. But as with all of this discussion, by all means seek out independent qualified objective evaluation. I welcome it. The meaning of the words used, is quite simply and quite obviously not a matter of opinion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Don't put words in my mouth! I did not state that I wanted to abandon rational ideas, evidence, or reason. This is a lie. I don't find Anarchy rational, I don't see evidence in history contrary to my opinion, and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. It is your opinion that Anarchy is rational, and you are trying to make me out to be an idiot by lying: stating I said I wanted to abandon a RATIONAL idea.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have demonstrated that in fact you have adopted positions and made claims that necessitate abandoning reason and evidence. The rational individual would at that point, abandon those positions and claims, but rather than choosing this action, or seeking independent confirmation, you simply insulted me and made other personal attacks. This is the ad hominem tactic, which is of course a logical fallacy. Now as to lying, I do not practice it. Furthermore you would have to know my intention in order to make such a claim, and have it be true. The fact is that I have no intention to deceive, a primary criteria for lying, nor have I offered false claims, another criteria for lying. I have not called you stupid, nor insulted your person in any way. I would strongly recommed Wendy McElroy's The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival. In it you can discover the difference between ideas and emotions, as well as separating emotion from your positions such that you do not take the criticism of some argument of position you adopt, from insults to yoru person. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, in fact, you did call me stupid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again this is quite simply dishonest. You have not and cannot cite a single instance where I have called you any names at all, including "stupid." As Socrates reminds us, Ideas are not our children we ought not treat them as such. Do not take the criticism of ideas, arguments etc, as personal attacks for they are not. You see this is the difference between your calling me a liar, and asshole, etc, and my refuting your claims and arguments. Where I have addressed the issues, claims and arguments only, you have attacked me as a person and claimed insult because I am able and willing to refute ideas that you hold dear. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Continuing to attempt to prove "your logic is better than mine" is unnecessarily hostile. I didn't come to this thread to fight you. I've got better things to do than be insulted and to be told what I'm saying. So starting giving a flying flip or I'm going to show you the attention I show Jehovah's Witnesses.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, this is not a contest where one wins only at the expense of another. Sever your emotional attachment from the ideas and issues. Logic is not dependent upon any individual. It is a tool, and it is singular. The only way to lose is to abandon civility, intellectual honesty, and reason. In cases where one chooses to call another an asshole, liar, etc then both lose. The only way for any to win, is to remain civil, honest, and reasonable. You must be willing to examine the ideas objectively, allowing that in fact your beliefs may be mistaken. These ideas are not sacred, nor are they profane. If your emotional attachment is too strong, or if your animosity towards me as a person is too strong, then by all means seek out independent, qualified, objective evaluation.

Mar 14, 2004, 06:09 pm	#184 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	I will certainly do that Mia, WHEN I state an opinion rather than objective facts. Fortunately what I have offered here is all verifiable and based squarely upon reason, thus avoiding the necessity of baseless opinining.

Mar 19, 2004, 09:09 am	#186 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Patriot Molten Ash Posts: 143	I see all property as being theft myself.

Mar 30, 2004, 06:10 am	#188 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) Mia, you're almost right. THere is no way that any ideology can justify someone controling someone else. Anarchy is the only one that doesn't advocate this. Thus, by the process of elimination, it is the only one you can choose without taking away rights of others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, anarchy takes away the rights of the people who want government and all the things that come with it. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 30, 2004, 09:01 am	#189 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Mia, that is simply not true. The only thing that anarchy "takes away" is the "right" to control the lives of others. Nothing more. SInce no such right exists, nor could exist, no rights at all are lost. If you want to get together with others and form voluntary associations you are free to do so.

Apr 4, 2004, 09:08 pm	#190 (permalink) (top)
i6r6s6 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	There are only two [2] CLASSes of taxes: 1. DIRECT 2. INDIRECT The "NATURE" of a Direct tax is either a CAPITATION tax, or a PROPERTY tax The "NATURE" of an Indirect tax is either an EXCISE tax, an IMPOST tax, or a DUTY. [since there is very little difference between them the words EXCISE, DUTY, and IMPOST are sometimes used interchangeably.] The "SUBJECT" [or, the 'things' which are taxed] of a Direct tax are: PEOPLE or PROPETY. [nouns] The "SUBJECT" [or the 'things' which are taxed] of an Indirect tax are: ACTIVITIES, EVENTS, HAPPENINGS, OR OCCASIONS. [actions or verbs] Requirements for constitutional taxation: ALL Direct taxes MUST be APPORTIONED. ALL, not just some, or most, or, except, but EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!! ALL Indirect taxes MUST be UNIFORM. ALL, not just some, or most, or, with the exception of, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!! Q: What is the Subject of the, so-called, "income" tax? [that is, what is the government taxing?] STATEMENT: Most people who file income taxes believe it is their income/paycheck/money/property. Let's find out what they neglected to teach us in the government's schools... If the govt was taxing our paycheck/money/income that would fall under the Subject of PROPERTY [since our 'income' is not People, nor is it an Event - the only three (3) Subjects (or, 'things')which congress is authorized to tax.] If the govt was taxing our PROPERTY [income] that would place it under the CLASS of a DIRECT tax. What is the constitutional requirement for a Direct tax? It MUST BE PROPORTIONED! Q: Is the, so-called, "income" tax Proportioned? ['Proportioned' means that after each ten (10) year national census is taken, the govt knows what percentage of the total population of the U.S. lives in each state. That state is then responsible for their percentage of the amount of money that congress says it needs.] STATEMENT: The, so-called, "income" tax is not Apportioned. [it is Uniform in that no matter in what state you work, you pay "x" amount of taxes if your income is "y" (disregarding deductions).] If the, so-called, "income" tax is applied UNIFORMly then it is not a DIRECT tax but is, instead, an INDIRECT tax. If the, so-called, "income" tax is an INdirect tax then the federal govt, vis-a-vis the Internal Revenue is NOT taxing our "incomes"! STATEMENT: The federal govt is NOT taxing our incomes. The, so-called, "income" tax is an INdiect EXCISE tax on an ACTIVITY that an individual is performiming that congress has specifically - and legally - taxed for the purpose of collecting revenue. An individual who legally must pay an "income" tax is an individual who is working in a Revenue Taxable Activity. This individual fulfills the very strict and narrow, legal description of a "TAXPAYER", as that term ["taxpayer"] is defined in the int. rev. code book, and in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States. That is, "...a person who...is subject to pay his own personal income tax." Q: Where, in the int. rev. code book, [if at all] does it show where you have been made subject to pay your own personal income tax because it states that the Activity in which you are engaged has been legally taxed by congress for the purpose of collecting revenue - and is not a RIGHT which congress has no authority given it by the Constitution to tax?! EXAMPLE: Two [2] examples that you will be able to find that congress has the legal authority to tax for the purpose of collecting revenue are: 26 U.S.C. 5005(a), and, 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1) [do you remember the phrase, "sin taxes"?] LAST QUESTION: Where is it shown, if at all, in the int. rev. code book that you are engaged in a Revenue Taxable Activity such that you would fall under the authority of the internal revenue? (p.s. do not cite the 16th Amendment unless you can show where it, unlike the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th, has repealed Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and A1, S8, C1, and, 1,9,4, of the United States Constitution.]