Not the same thing. Military service is employement. The contract between employer and employee is voluntary, and may be terminated by either party.
The relationship between civilian and government is not voluntary, therefore it is not a contract at all. You cannot decide to terminate your relationship with government. Either you play by their rules, or you meet the consequence of deadly force. That's how government does business, and that's the only way it can do business. (If government were voluntary, it wouldn't be government. It would be private enterprise.)
This is not anagalous to employment; it is anagalous to the mob running a protection racket.
Force is only meaningful when defined as an interaction between human beings. Every possible interaction falls into exactly one of two categories: force, or voluntary association.
Now, go ahead and prove how the stoplight scenario represents an interaction of force, not voluntary association.
I think it is quite obvious that we value our security and our childrens' lives much more than we value the lives of the terrorists that violate our personal liberties.
Do I really have to remind you that we're not talking about terrorists? We're talking about tens of thousands of innocent human beings.
America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die.
No, they simply pretend that instead of killing innocent human beings, they are killing sub-human monsters.
The first prerequisite of war is that the aggressors collectively refuse to acknowledge that the victims are human. Once the masses have been converted, they simply ignore any argument that appeals to human rights.
A stoplight does not posess the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, nor does it grant that "right" to the people who wait for the color to change.
That's what they say, isn't it? Once this election thing is all over, we can all get back to being friends? If only that made sense.
Let's not forget what you all were fighting over: the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. That's what government is. That's the objective of the political process: to determine who acquires the "right" to rule, and who becomes the tool to serve the objectives of the rulers.
So now that your friends -- the majority -- have acquired this power over you -- the minority -- and you have been branded a tool to serve the majority's grand plan for how "best" to use this "right" to initiate force, are we still one big happy family?
The fact remains, nothing that comes from government can be "free", because all your government benefits come only at the expense of those who oppose them.
It may be "free" for you, but if you can't see that you're infringing on others' human right to voluntary labor, then you're blind.
Considering that government is comprised almost exclusively of republicans and democrats (especially in offices of higher power), and that both parties voted nearly unanimously in favor of this expansion of government power, we could say that government voted for the patriot act.
Who would've thought -- government is primarily concerned with protecting its own interests, and accordingly jumps at the chance to expand its powers. Not surprising, when you consider that the type of person most interested in acquring power (the "right" to initiate force) are those who want to control others through force, not those who want to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.
Also not really my problem, not living in the US and all that.
The US government currently has troops stationed in over 150 countries throughout the world, and has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, every year for the past 100 years. The US government is everybody's problem.
Then your personal opinion are more important than majority opinion. Majority opinion is what you advocate when you say "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for". You're advocating the process of democracy, which is founded on the principle of majority opinion.
I agree, your personal opinion is more important than majority opinion, so long as you don't infringe on any other individual's right to his own opinion.
But the question remains, why advocate the process of democracy with no regard for your personal opinion, which is more important than the process of democracy?
that the larger the voter turnout, the greater the legitimacy of the results
So no matter what you believe yourself, you are willing to completely abandon those beliefs if a majority decides they're wrong?
In other words, majority opinion is more important to you than your own beliefs? Then I must ask, how can you ever know who to vote for? If the majority opinion is most "legitimate", then you'd have to wait until the election is over before you can know who to vote for. Right?
Let me get this straight. You want me to vote. You don't care who I vote for, as long as I vote. Correct?
Now, logic tells me that if you don't care who I vote for, then you don't have a preference for the outcome of the election. If the outcome of the election was important to you, then you'd try to persuade me to vote for your preference, instead of just persuading me to vote.
So, why are you advocating the voting process if you don't have a preference in the first place?
Alternatively, if you do have a preference, then you do care about the outcome of the election. So what do you you gain by causing an effectively random vote? (My vote is effectively random because you haven't tried to persuade me one way or the other.) You've only introduced an element of randomness into the electoral process.
In other words, what's more important to you, the fact that people get out and vote, or the outcome of the election?
did he believe that we should help the poor... Did Jesus limit his healing to those that could afford the money to pay him? Or did he reach out and touch all in need?
Did Jesus ever initiate force as a means to an end, or did he interact with others through voluntary association only (i.e. charity)?
(Just a thought, for those who would advocate socialism.)
Re:Jealous vs. Envious
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Bin Laden has specifically stated that the attacks were in response to US foreign policy, not freedom or culture or any other instance of non-aggression. That doesn't mean he isn't going to hell for murdering innocent people, however.
Of course, it wouldn't be in the US government's best interest to admit that US foreign policy seeds hatred and resentment, now would it?
There are so many bills that need to be passed, they just don't have the time to read them! In other words, passing the bill -- that is, expanding the scope of government -- is more important than the specifics of the bill itself, let alone the negative effects.
It's obvious now what the #1 priority of government is: to expand the scope of government.
stupid, impressionable people are more likely to vote Democrat
That's interesting, because I see just as many false promises and blatant scams coming from the republicans. Really, is the person who falls for socialism really any more gullible than the person who falls for war-mongering? In the end, both sides are only out to serve their own interests.
Re:Jealous vs. Envious
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Sure, they hate the US for their "freedoms", not the fact that the US government bombs innocent civilians in the name of political gain. Never mind all those polls showing that by far, most of the Islamic world admires freedom and culture in the US, and specifically denounces US foreign policy.
That propaganda really is addictive, isn't it?
Re:Jealous vs. Envious
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's interesting, but US citizens who actually believe the cliche "they hate us for our freedom" most likely did not arrive at that conclusion on their own. That's simply the propaganda they've been fed by their government. (Since 9/11, this line has been repeated by US politicians over and over and over ad nauseum.) So, no need to analyze the thinking process of such people -- most likely there isn't one at all.
To quote a famous Rush song (bear with me), "if you refuse to choose, you still have made a choice". I happen to believe my choice (to refuse to play the game) is the only moral option.
Slashdot Mirror
Not the same thing. Military service is employement. The contract between employer and employee is voluntary, and may be terminated by either party.
The relationship between civilian and government is not voluntary, therefore it is not a contract at all. You cannot decide to terminate your relationship with government. Either you play by their rules, or you meet the consequence of deadly force. That's how government does business, and that's the only way it can do business. (If government were voluntary, it wouldn't be government. It would be private enterprise.)
This is not anagalous to employment; it is anagalous to the mob running a protection racket.
Force is only meaningful when defined as an interaction between human beings. Every possible interaction falls into exactly one of two categories: force, or voluntary association.
Now, go ahead and prove how the stoplight scenario represents an interaction of force, not voluntary association.
Of course, no use of mod points is more critical than silencing those who point out mod point abuse. Hence, the -1 rating of my above comment.
Seriously, are you that spineless that you can't even come up with one counter argument?
Do I really have to remind you that we're not talking about terrorists? We're talking about tens of thousands of innocent human beings.
No, they simply pretend that instead of killing innocent human beings, they are killing sub-human monsters.
The first prerequisite of war is that the aggressors collectively refuse to acknowledge that the victims are human. Once the masses have been converted, they simply ignore any argument that appeals to human rights.
I see the moderation nazis are out again. If you can't use logic to counter the point, simply mod the thought right out of existence!
A stoplight does not posess the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, nor does it grant that "right" to the people who wait for the color to change.
Logic. Give it a chance.
The social contract claims that I willingly give my consent to be ruled. It states that I volunteer to submit to force.
But voluntary association and force are not compatible. Every human interaction falls into exactly one of the two categories, never both.
You cannot volunteer to be forced, just as you cannot be forced to volunteer. The concepts are mutually exclusive.
The social contract theory, therefore, is null and void. You are ruled by force, not voluntary consent.
That's what they say, isn't it? Once this election thing is all over, we can all get back to being friends? If only that made sense.
Let's not forget what you all were fighting over: the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. That's what government is. That's the objective of the political process: to determine who acquires the "right" to rule, and who becomes the tool to serve the objectives of the rulers.
So now that your friends -- the majority -- have acquired this power over you -- the minority -- and you have been branded a tool to serve the majority's grand plan for how "best" to use this "right" to initiate force, are we still one big happy family?
The fact remains, nothing that comes from government can be "free", because all your government benefits come only at the expense of those who oppose them.
It may be "free" for you, but if you can't see that you're infringing on others' human right to voluntary labor, then you're blind.
A corporation that operates on the principle of force is criminal and should be dealt with accordingly.
There certainly are criminals in the private sector, but they are few compared to the number of criminals in government.
Who would've thought -- government is primarily concerned with protecting its own interests, and accordingly jumps at the chance to expand its powers. Not surprising, when you consider that the type of person most interested in acquring power (the "right" to initiate force) are those who want to control others through force, not those who want to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.
What's so "free" about being stripped of your right to decided where, when, and how to spend your own earnings?
The US government currently has troops stationed in over 150 countries throughout the world, and has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, every year for the past 100 years. The US government is everybody's problem.
Then your personal opinion are more important than majority opinion. Majority opinion is what you advocate when you say "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for". You're advocating the process of democracy, which is founded on the principle of majority opinion.
I agree, your personal opinion is more important than majority opinion, so long as you don't infringe on any other individual's right to his own opinion.
But the question remains, why advocate the process of democracy with no regard for your personal opinion, which is more important than the process of democracy?
So no matter what you believe yourself, you are willing to completely abandon those beliefs if a majority decides they're wrong?
In other words, majority opinion is more important to you than your own beliefs? Then I must ask, how can you ever know who to vote for? If the majority opinion is most "legitimate", then you'd have to wait until the election is over before you can know who to vote for. Right?
Let me get this straight. You want me to vote. You don't care who I vote for, as long as I vote. Correct?
Now, logic tells me that if you don't care who I vote for, then you don't have a preference for the outcome of the election. If the outcome of the election was important to you, then you'd try to persuade me to vote for your preference, instead of just persuading me to vote.
So, why are you advocating the voting process if you don't have a preference in the first place?
Alternatively, if you do have a preference, then you do care about the outcome of the election. So what do you you gain by causing an effectively random vote? (My vote is effectively random because you haven't tried to persuade me one way or the other.) You've only introduced an element of randomness into the electoral process.
In other words, what's more important to you, the fact that people get out and vote, or the outcome of the election?
Did Jesus ever initiate force as a means to an end, or did he interact with others through voluntary association only (i.e. charity)?
(Just a thought, for those who would advocate socialism.)
Bin Laden has specifically stated that the attacks were in response to US foreign policy, not freedom or culture or any other instance of non-aggression. That doesn't mean he isn't going to hell for murdering innocent people, however.
Of course, it wouldn't be in the US government's best interest to admit that US foreign policy seeds hatred and resentment, now would it?
Stop right there. Can anyone spot the problem?
There are so many bills that need to be passed, they just don't have the time to read them! In other words, passing the bill -- that is, expanding the scope of government -- is more important than the specifics of the bill itself, let alone the negative effects.
It's obvious now what the #1 priority of government is: to expand the scope of government.
That's interesting, because I see just as many false promises and blatant scams coming from the republicans. Really, is the person who falls for socialism really any more gullible than the person who falls for war-mongering? In the end, both sides are only out to serve their own interests.
That propaganda really is addictive, isn't it?
That's interesting, but US citizens who actually believe the cliche "they hate us for our freedom" most likely did not arrive at that conclusion on their own. That's simply the propaganda they've been fed by their government. (Since 9/11, this line has been repeated by US politicians over and over and over ad nauseum.) So, no need to analyze the thinking process of such people -- most likely there isn't one at all.
If force is invoked as a means to an end, then it's not free trade at all.
To quote a famous Rush song (bear with me), "if you refuse to choose, you still have made a choice". I happen to believe my choice (to refuse to play the game) is the only moral option.