And just in case you are going to try to weasel out of things, this is from the laws of war:
"Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5."
So, you are playing stupid semantic games. You try to imply that if people aren't prisoners of war, it's okay to torture them. First, they need to go through a competent tribunal before being declared illegal combatants. That has not been done. Therefore, they are prisoners of war. But even were they not, torture would still be illegal, immoral and ineffective.
Did you even READ that page? The very first line reads as follows:
"A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict."
So, by that definition, we have tortured prisoners of war. Do you have your own, special, made up definition that lets you think the US doesn't torture POWs? I'd love to hear it.
I'm sure in your mind, we are the pristine Good Guys, and 'Arabs' are all the devil incarnate. Does it give you a surge of patriotic pride knowing we're shocking the testicles of innocents, waterboarding them, and beating them to death? Maybe you get a warm, tingly feeling imagining 'justice' being done?
We have tortured prisoners of war. Many of whom are completely innocent of any wrong-doing, or even negative thoughts towards us. We are not the good guys, so stop mentally masturbating to daydreams of innocents suffering for no good cause.
You still don't understand what I'm saying because you think of me as some kind of authoritarian socialist, which I'm not. So everything I write, you read with the preconceived notion that I am advocating imposing some kind of cessation of rights on others.
The fact remains, I am talking about contracts, agreements between individuals. You may not like the implications, but they exist whether you understand and accept them or not.
Agreeing means you understand and accept the conditions placed on you in exchange for a consideration. I give you land, you give me money, a promise to pay taxes, and a promise to hold anyone you sell the land to to the same promise. That is a valid contract. If your supposed libertarian court overturns such a contract, then contracts are simply not valid.
I don't even understand how you can ascribe to me the labor law arguments you do. In America, we have labor laws. I support them. I also support your right to attempt to change them using the agreed upon methods. Or to go off and found your own country with your own labor laws.
You see, I'm not trying to force you or anyone to do anything. I just happen to think that libertarianism would lead to unstoppable oppression of the least fortunate through economic coercion. Whenever I speak out against this likelihood, people accuse me of attempting to force them to do something against their will, which is ludicrous.
And assuming I don't know about Pareto Efficiency simply indicates your own lack of knowledge, as I use the term frequently. You know that if one person owned everything on the planet, that is Pareto optimal, and no further Pareto improvements are possible, right? Pareto doesn't mean shit in terms of justice or fairness, and everyone with half a brain knows it.
The whole point of this exercise has been to show that, within the contract based, libertarian, free market system, people can create a system that is just as restrictive as any other, and therefore libertarianism fails in its attempt at creating or expanding human freedom. It was not to make a specific point about the US government, or governments in general.
I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground, merely pointing out the consequences of systems based entirely on contract and the free market. They fail in obvious and easily predictable ways. Anyone can create a duplicate of our system within a libertarian framework in such a way that no one can have any moral objection to it.
As for labor laws, we agreed to follow the will of the majority here in America, and if we don't like that bargain we can leave or attempt to change it, but there is no valid moral argument that it is wrong or oppressive. The majority have agreed that we should have labor laws, and thus we do. If you want to try to change them, fine. If you want to start your own country where there are none, fine. I wouldn't live there, and I wouldn't transact business with a place like that, but maybe someone would.
The Jews never agreed to anything the Nazis did, so once again, your analogy fails miserably.
Why do you keep bringing up school terminology? Are you still in school?
Again, I am not saying you don't have the right to complain. I even said, you have the right to go through channels to change things. But when you buy things with conditions on them, you don't just get to ignore the promises you made! I can't believe I'm even having to argue this with you.
The thing is, in a ghetto, what promises did you make? Did you promise not to complain about the crime? If that was a condition of buying the land, well, then tough. You made the promise, you keep it.
If you promise to pay taxes when you buy the land, you do so. You can go through channels to change that. You don't have a moral right to simply decide you don't like the conditions you agreed to and change them unilaterally.
The argument has never been that you knew in advance "what it was like," it was that you knew in advance what conditions attached to the sale. If you buy it, you accept the conditions of the sale. If a condition of the sale is that you sterilize yourself, you either do so or you don't buy, or you break your promise. There is no other alternative.
Your analogy to crime in a ghetto is flawed, as I have repeatedly pointed out, because crime is a condition of the area, not a condition of the sale that you either agree to or don't buy.
I will make one last attempt to explain to you the point I am arguing, because it is nothing like what you keep responding to. If you accept ownership and contract as valid, then you accept the fact that an owner can place conditions on sales and others can either agree to the conditions or not buy. If one of the conditions is that you only sell to someone who accepts those same conditions, then that is valid as well. You don't get to sell the land to someone who does not accept the original conditions because that is what you promised the original owner.
You are basically arguing that it is okay to break promises you don't like.
I'm done. You can continue to post your blather and think you've somehow won the argument, but all you've proven is that you can't understand basic English or follow a coherent argument.
By your 'reasoning' you've also implied that your moral center is based on the childish notion anything that limits what you want to do is bad and wrong. Even promises you've freely made can be broken whenever you feel like it. Like your horrendous lack of logic and comprehension skills, this goes to show what an complete child you are overall.
Sure, because we've redefined what prisoner of war means, what you say is technically true. So I'm sure you won't mind if the Ministry of Truth operatives come and apply some 'joyous fun electrical stimulation' to your 'special happy place.' Hey, words can mean whatever we want them too, right? If we capture someone and they aren't wearing a uniform, they must be a terrorist and not a P.O.W., right?
No you idiot, I never argued that any government is an original owner of anything. Why do you insist on making things up and then ascribing them to me? I can't even have any kind of a discussion with you because you evidently don't inhabit the same reality as the rest of us. Go back and reread what I wrote, dolt.
I will repeat, because you are obviously too dumb to comprehend: I am not saying the government was the original owner of diddly squat. I am talking about the right of the owner of land to place permanent stipulations on its resale by placing stipulations on the buyer.
I am saying, regardless of the original owner, that all land in the US has such stipulations on it, the current owner bought the land with the understanding that such stipulations exist, and that he may only sell it with such stipulations. Part of the stipulations are that there are ways to change the stipulations, but that can't be done unilaterally. This is not about government, this is about contract between individuals.
Conversing with you makes my brain hurt because I have to dumb everything down to a third grade level and still need to repeat myself five or six times, and you still don't comprehend what I'm saying, because you live in a fantasy world where everything means what you want it to mean and not what other people tell you it means.
I never said you don't have the right to complain, of course you can! What you can't do is unilaterally change the rules, or claim some kind of moral right to have things be different just because you want it that way.
Your analogy is so flawed it's almost unbelievable a human, and not some brain damaged rhesus monkey thought it up. Because I was talking about stipulations placed on the land by the original owner, and you are talking about a circumstance external to the owner. How can you possibly be so dumb as to think you've made any kind of point? Are you secretly BadAnalogyGuy in disguise?
As always, I feel dumber just having read what you wrote.
Clever. If you duck when flooring it through yellow lights, the cameras can't photograph you. The people reviewing the photographs will think that a ghost is driving the car. Dead people can't pay traffic fines. Therefore, just to be safe, you should duck and floor it when going through any intersection.
No, it's just acknowledging the fact that people are still going to be in the intersection when the light turns red. If your front bumper is an inch into the intersection when yellow, in most places it's not running a red light so most people try to take advantage of that when they can. It won't change congestion because people are already acting as if there is a delay.
I personally think those people and the people who accelerate like maniacs away from the light deserve to run into each other.
If they have reduced the duration of yellow lights, it can be argued that you did not in fact have a choice. Showing an increase in rear end accidents, you can claim that stopping would have been more dangerous. We still have jury trials, I think most juries would be so appalled to hear of this practice that they would find the defendant not guilty. Whatever the judge and prosecutor said about only judging the facts, they would likely judge the law itself as unfair.
How is he gaming the mod system? Someone or someones made it their sworn mission to systematically destroy him, so he made some sock-puppets, BFD. You think it's okay to mod him into oblivion so few people ever sees his posts because a few people don't like what he writes? I mean, the guys is a one trick pony and a little bit of a troll, but sometimes he writes some insightful things.
I don't object to Macthorpe pointing out that twitter has a sock-puppet army, I just think its weird to be that obsessed about someone. Looking at your posting history, it seems you are too. And Macthorpe is a fan, while twitter is a friend?
Now I get it! You, Macthorpe, and twitter are all the same guy, trying to make yourself the fucking focus of Slashdot. Dude, how dissociative are you? I mean, is it like total multiple personalities, or do you actually remember what your other selves do?
I am now quietly backing away from this clusterfuck.
Say anything you like about me, it's all made up bullshit anyway, and everyone here but a handful of loons knows it. It makes me so happy when I piss off clueless assholes who project their own bad behavior onto others rather than face up to what they are. You call me names and whine about what I post because you can't refute what I write. This also makes me very happy. Thanks!
For me and most sane folks on Slashdot, Macthorpe's weird obsession with twitter is the current running joke. It's like Macthorpe has a schoolboy crush on him and expresses it by constantly pulling twitter's hair and putting bugs down his shirt. The two of them should get a room because it's pretty obvious they're about to start making out, and no one wants to see that.
Not to be pedantic, but the USPS is no longer a part of the federal government. They are part of the government, not a government owned corporation like Amtrack. So it can't be sued under the Sherman anti-trust act. The board is appointed by the President. It is a quasi governmental agency. So it has many governmental powers for instance it can negotiate mail treaties with other countries. I'm not sure whether its employees are considered government employees or not. You have anything to back up your claims?
There's no real class system here. The comments about low UIDs are a JOKE, okay? It's really more of a meritocracy. If you are tactful, humble, erudite, and most of all, well informed on the subject you are posting about, you will be respected and modded up, even if the view is unpopular and you have a seven digit UID. If you are an asshole or an idiot, you will be modded down. As a general rule. There are exceptions.
Well, I could say the papers report that way because there is no real dissenting voice. But that's bullshit. I've been in plenty of protests and rallies with tens of thousands of people. Ten wingnuts counter-protesting get equal time in the media.
You ever hear the phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads?" Global warming is like that. Fear and destruction sell. And a fearful populace is more likely to do what the rich and powerful media owners want them to. Remember, the rich may be socially liberal or socially conservative, but they are pretty much all fiscal conservatives who want a smaller government and less taxes.
You've never tried to drop out, have you? I have. It works fine. Didn't pay taxes for eight years. You don't want to drop out though. It's not about force. Nobody tried to force me back in. Nobody gave a shit. You could do it if you want to.
But you don't want to. You want all the benefits of society without the burden. You want the streets and the grocery stores and the gas stations. Heck, libertarians even tried to get a free state project going so you all could move there, change the laws and drop out together. But getting self-centered libertarians to cooperate on a project is like trying to herd cats.
You could all do it. You could all drop out. But you'd rather whine and complain to try to get us to change for you. And when we don't want to change, you accuse us of oppressing you and threatening you with guns. You guys are worse than emo kids.
No, they are all conservative too. Just less so. Maybe even conservative/Democrat. See, the major media is all owned by rich people. Rich people tend to be conservative. They like to use their news outlets to convince us all that their interests are our interests.
Your kind are worse than emo kids. You whine and whine, but you never back up your claims. You are self righteous and self centered. You squeal like little piggies when your precious 'rights' are trampled, which is all the time because your 'rights' amount to 'you're not the boss of me!' But you never stand up for other people's rights, we're all on our own, not your responsibility.
I know you have an account here, or should have one if you've been here long enough to think you know me. Yet you choose to post anonymously. You deserve the label.
You've made all kind of assertions that you can't back up. When I accuse libertarians of having secret fascist leanings, I show my work. I back up my assertions with chains of reasoning. I'd love to see you try to back up yours.
I'm describing not a government but a system of contracts freely entered into. That is the basis of freedom, but do go on, please, show how what I wrote supports tyrrany. Because what I wrote is about contracts, the very basis of libertarian thought. So even if you do manage to tie what I've written to tyranny, you've also tied libertarianism to it. Have fun!
Why should there be a reasonable limit? Seems kind of arbitrary to me. I mean, on the one hand, you don't seem to want any limits on what you can do on your property. But you want to limit how I can sell mine.
What if I have a cemetery on my land I don't want dug up? What if there's a historical monument I don't want disturbed? I could decide not to sell my land at all, so then is everyone else free to just take what was mine and use it? What if my children promised never to let anyone destroy the cematary or monument or whatever, and I decided to give the land to them, and we drew up a contract saying they promised not to disturb the whatever, and promised to extract the same promise from anyone they sold it too.
Now, at some point, you are saying it is moral to break a promise freely entered into by raising the defense that the original promise was made long ago. How long ago did the original promise have to be made, to make it fair to break a current promise?
You can certainly try to raise that defense, but if you bought property in the US, you bought it knowing full well you'd have to pay taxes on it. Fortunately for you, you can go through channels and try to get those taxes repealed. Fortunately for the rest of us, who feel that paying taxes is fair, you probably won't be doing it here.
Meanwhile, you can stop trying to make this a moral argument, because you'll lose. You don't get to cry, "Waaaa, the big mean government is taking my money against my will!" You don't like it, you are free to try to change it through the channels you agreed to by maintaining your citizenship, shop around for a better deal, or drop out.
Slashdot Mirror
And just in case you are going to try to weasel out of things, this is from the laws of war:
"Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5."
So, you are playing stupid semantic games. You try to imply that if people aren't prisoners of war, it's okay to torture them. First, they need to go through a competent tribunal before being declared illegal combatants. That has not been done. Therefore, they are prisoners of war. But even were they not, torture would still be illegal, immoral and ineffective.
Did you even READ that page? The very first line reads as follows:
"A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict."
So, by that definition, we have tortured prisoners of war. Do you have your own, special, made up definition that lets you think the US doesn't torture POWs? I'd love to hear it.
I'm sure in your mind, we are the pristine Good Guys, and 'Arabs' are all the devil incarnate. Does it give you a surge of patriotic pride knowing we're shocking the testicles of innocents, waterboarding them, and beating them to death? Maybe you get a warm, tingly feeling imagining 'justice' being done?
We have tortured prisoners of war. Many of whom are completely innocent of any wrong-doing, or even negative thoughts towards us. We are not the good guys, so stop mentally masturbating to daydreams of innocents suffering for no good cause.
You still don't understand what I'm saying because you think of me as some kind of authoritarian socialist, which I'm not. So everything I write, you read with the preconceived notion that I am advocating imposing some kind of cessation of rights on others.
The fact remains, I am talking about contracts, agreements between individuals. You may not like the implications, but they exist whether you understand and accept them or not.
Agreeing means you understand and accept the conditions placed on you in exchange for a consideration. I give you land, you give me money, a promise to pay taxes, and a promise to hold anyone you sell the land to to the same promise. That is a valid contract. If your supposed libertarian court overturns such a contract, then contracts are simply not valid.
I don't even understand how you can ascribe to me the labor law arguments you do. In America, we have labor laws. I support them. I also support your right to attempt to change them using the agreed upon methods. Or to go off and found your own country with your own labor laws.
You see, I'm not trying to force you or anyone to do anything. I just happen to think that libertarianism would lead to unstoppable oppression of the least fortunate through economic coercion. Whenever I speak out against this likelihood, people accuse me of attempting to force them to do something against their will, which is ludicrous.
And assuming I don't know about Pareto Efficiency simply indicates your own lack of knowledge, as I use the term frequently. You know that if one person owned everything on the planet, that is Pareto optimal, and no further Pareto improvements are possible, right? Pareto doesn't mean shit in terms of justice or fairness, and everyone with half a brain knows it.
The whole point of this exercise has been to show that, within the contract based, libertarian, free market system, people can create a system that is just as restrictive as any other, and therefore libertarianism fails in its attempt at creating or expanding human freedom. It was not to make a specific point about the US government, or governments in general.
I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground, merely pointing out the consequences of systems based entirely on contract and the free market. They fail in obvious and easily predictable ways. Anyone can create a duplicate of our system within a libertarian framework in such a way that no one can have any moral objection to it.
As for labor laws, we agreed to follow the will of the majority here in America, and if we don't like that bargain we can leave or attempt to change it, but there is no valid moral argument that it is wrong or oppressive. The majority have agreed that we should have labor laws, and thus we do. If you want to try to change them, fine. If you want to start your own country where there are none, fine. I wouldn't live there, and I wouldn't transact business with a place like that, but maybe someone would.
The Jews never agreed to anything the Nazis did, so once again, your analogy fails miserably.
Why do you keep bringing up school terminology? Are you still in school?
Again, I am not saying you don't have the right to complain. I even said, you have the right to go through channels to change things. But when you buy things with conditions on them, you don't just get to ignore the promises you made! I can't believe I'm even having to argue this with you.
The thing is, in a ghetto, what promises did you make? Did you promise not to complain about the crime? If that was a condition of buying the land, well, then tough. You made the promise, you keep it.
If you promise to pay taxes when you buy the land, you do so. You can go through channels to change that. You don't have a moral right to simply decide you don't like the conditions you agreed to and change them unilaterally.
The argument has never been that you knew in advance "what it was like," it was that you knew in advance what conditions attached to the sale. If you buy it, you accept the conditions of the sale. If a condition of the sale is that you sterilize yourself, you either do so or you don't buy, or you break your promise. There is no other alternative.
Your analogy to crime in a ghetto is flawed, as I have repeatedly pointed out, because crime is a condition of the area, not a condition of the sale that you either agree to or don't buy.
I will make one last attempt to explain to you the point I am arguing, because it is nothing like what you keep responding to. If you accept ownership and contract as valid, then you accept the fact that an owner can place conditions on sales and others can either agree to the conditions or not buy. If one of the conditions is that you only sell to someone who accepts those same conditions, then that is valid as well. You don't get to sell the land to someone who does not accept the original conditions because that is what you promised the original owner.
You are basically arguing that it is okay to break promises you don't like.
I'm done. You can continue to post your blather and think you've somehow won the argument, but all you've proven is that you can't understand basic English or follow a coherent argument.
By your 'reasoning' you've also implied that your moral center is based on the childish notion anything that limits what you want to do is bad and wrong. Even promises you've freely made can be broken whenever you feel like it. Like your horrendous lack of logic and comprehension skills, this goes to show what an complete child you are overall.
Sure, because we've redefined what prisoner of war means, what you say is technically true. So I'm sure you won't mind if the Ministry of Truth operatives come and apply some 'joyous fun electrical stimulation' to your 'special happy place.' Hey, words can mean whatever we want them too, right? If we capture someone and they aren't wearing a uniform, they must be a terrorist and not a P.O.W., right?
Saaaaay..... are you wearing your uniform?
No you idiot, I never argued that any government is an original owner of anything. Why do you insist on making things up and then ascribing them to me? I can't even have any kind of a discussion with you because you evidently don't inhabit the same reality as the rest of us. Go back and reread what I wrote, dolt.
I will repeat, because you are obviously too dumb to comprehend: I am not saying the government was the original owner of diddly squat. I am talking about the right of the owner of land to place permanent stipulations on its resale by placing stipulations on the buyer.
I am saying, regardless of the original owner, that all land in the US has such stipulations on it, the current owner bought the land with the understanding that such stipulations exist, and that he may only sell it with such stipulations. Part of the stipulations are that there are ways to change the stipulations, but that can't be done unilaterally. This is not about government, this is about contract between individuals.
Conversing with you makes my brain hurt because I have to dumb everything down to a third grade level and still need to repeat myself five or six times, and you still don't comprehend what I'm saying, because you live in a fantasy world where everything means what you want it to mean and not what other people tell you it means.
I never said you don't have the right to complain, of course you can! What you can't do is unilaterally change the rules, or claim some kind of moral right to have things be different just because you want it that way.
Your analogy is so flawed it's almost unbelievable a human, and not some brain damaged rhesus monkey thought it up. Because I was talking about stipulations placed on the land by the original owner, and you are talking about a circumstance external to the owner. How can you possibly be so dumb as to think you've made any kind of point? Are you secretly BadAnalogyGuy in disguise?
As always, I feel dumber just having read what you wrote.
Its from the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. It's a joke, son, laugh.
Clever. If you duck when flooring it through yellow lights, the cameras can't photograph you. The people reviewing the photographs will think that a ghost is driving the car. Dead people can't pay traffic fines. Therefore, just to be safe, you should duck and floor it when going through any intersection.
Oh yes, because all those news sites get equal attention from the public.
And what I meant was, the rich want to stick the middle class and poor with as much of the tax burden as possible.
No, it's just acknowledging the fact that people are still going to be in the intersection when the light turns red. If your front bumper is an inch into the intersection when yellow, in most places it's not running a red light so most people try to take advantage of that when they can. It won't change congestion because people are already acting as if there is a delay.
I personally think those people and the people who accelerate like maniacs away from the light deserve to run into each other.
Sorry, those cameras are also speed triggered.
If they have reduced the duration of yellow lights, it can be argued that you did not in fact have a choice. Showing an increase in rear end accidents, you can claim that stopping would have been more dangerous. We still have jury trials, I think most juries would be so appalled to hear of this practice that they would find the defendant not guilty. Whatever the judge and prosecutor said about only judging the facts, they would likely judge the law itself as unfair.
How is he gaming the mod system? Someone or someones made it their sworn mission to systematically destroy him, so he made some sock-puppets, BFD. You think it's okay to mod him into oblivion so few people ever sees his posts because a few people don't like what he writes? I mean, the guys is a one trick pony and a little bit of a troll, but sometimes he writes some insightful things.
I don't object to Macthorpe pointing out that twitter has a sock-puppet army, I just think its weird to be that obsessed about someone. Looking at your posting history, it seems you are too. And Macthorpe is a fan, while twitter is a friend?
Now I get it! You, Macthorpe, and twitter are all the same guy, trying to make yourself the fucking focus of Slashdot. Dude, how dissociative are you? I mean, is it like total multiple personalities, or do you actually remember what your other selves do?
I am now quietly backing away from this clusterfuck.
Say anything you like about me, it's all made up bullshit anyway, and everyone here but a handful of loons knows it. It makes me so happy when I piss off clueless assholes who project their own bad behavior onto others rather than face up to what they are. You call me names and whine about what I post because you can't refute what I write. This also makes me very happy. Thanks!
For me and most sane folks on Slashdot, Macthorpe's weird obsession with twitter is the current running joke. It's like Macthorpe has a schoolboy crush on him and expresses it by constantly pulling twitter's hair and putting bugs down his shirt. The two of them should get a room because it's pretty obvious they're about to start making out, and no one wants to see that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Postal_Service#Governance_and_organization
There's no real class system here. The comments about low UIDs are a JOKE, okay? It's really more of a meritocracy. If you are tactful, humble, erudite, and most of all, well informed on the subject you are posting about, you will be respected and modded up, even if the view is unpopular and you have a seven digit UID. If you are an asshole or an idiot, you will be modded down. As a general rule. There are exceptions.
Well, I could say the papers report that way because there is no real dissenting voice. But that's bullshit. I've been in plenty of protests and rallies with tens of thousands of people. Ten wingnuts counter-protesting get equal time in the media.
You ever hear the phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads?" Global warming is like that. Fear and destruction sell. And a fearful populace is more likely to do what the rich and powerful media owners want them to. Remember, the rich may be socially liberal or socially conservative, but they are pretty much all fiscal conservatives who want a smaller government and less taxes.
Did you even read to the end of the third sentence? I said "No, they are all conservative too. Just less so. Maybe even conservative/Democrat."
They may be socially liberal, but almost all rich people are fiscal conservatives who don't like paying taxes and want a smaller government.
You've never tried to drop out, have you? I have. It works fine. Didn't pay taxes for eight years. You don't want to drop out though. It's not about force. Nobody tried to force me back in. Nobody gave a shit. You could do it if you want to.
But you don't want to. You want all the benefits of society without the burden. You want the streets and the grocery stores and the gas stations. Heck, libertarians even tried to get a free state project going so you all could move there, change the laws and drop out together. But getting self-centered libertarians to cooperate on a project is like trying to herd cats.
You could all do it. You could all drop out. But you'd rather whine and complain to try to get us to change for you. And when we don't want to change, you accuse us of oppressing you and threatening you with guns. You guys are worse than emo kids.
No, they are all conservative too. Just less so. Maybe even conservative/Democrat. See, the major media is all owned by rich people. Rich people tend to be conservative. They like to use their news outlets to convince us all that their interests are our interests.
Your kind are worse than emo kids. You whine and whine, but you never back up your claims. You are self righteous and self centered. You squeal like little piggies when your precious 'rights' are trampled, which is all the time because your 'rights' amount to 'you're not the boss of me!' But you never stand up for other people's rights, we're all on our own, not your responsibility.
I know you have an account here, or should have one if you've been here long enough to think you know me. Yet you choose to post anonymously. You deserve the label.
You've made all kind of assertions that you can't back up. When I accuse libertarians of having secret fascist leanings, I show my work. I back up my assertions with chains of reasoning. I'd love to see you try to back up yours.
I'm describing not a government but a system of contracts freely entered into. That is the basis of freedom, but do go on, please, show how what I wrote supports tyrrany. Because what I wrote is about contracts, the very basis of libertarian thought. So even if you do manage to tie what I've written to tyranny, you've also tied libertarianism to it. Have fun!
Why should there be a reasonable limit? Seems kind of arbitrary to me. I mean, on the one hand, you don't seem to want any limits on what you can do on your property. But you want to limit how I can sell mine.
What if I have a cemetery on my land I don't want dug up? What if there's a historical monument I don't want disturbed? I could decide not to sell my land at all, so then is everyone else free to just take what was mine and use it? What if my children promised never to let anyone destroy the cematary or monument or whatever, and I decided to give the land to them, and we drew up a contract saying they promised not to disturb the whatever, and promised to extract the same promise from anyone they sold it too.
Now, at some point, you are saying it is moral to break a promise freely entered into by raising the defense that the original promise was made long ago. How long ago did the original promise have to be made, to make it fair to break a current promise?
You can certainly try to raise that defense, but if you bought property in the US, you bought it knowing full well you'd have to pay taxes on it. Fortunately for you, you can go through channels and try to get those taxes repealed. Fortunately for the rest of us, who feel that paying taxes is fair, you probably won't be doing it here.
Meanwhile, you can stop trying to make this a moral argument, because you'll lose. You don't get to cry, "Waaaa, the big mean government is taking my money against my will!" You don't like it, you are free to try to change it through the channels you agreed to by maintaining your citizenship, shop around for a better deal, or drop out.