Assuming that was true,its an unsolvable problem anyhow.
Even if we had a one world government, which seems to be where you're headed, that government itself would be independant (failing some intergalactic government) and fall victim to the same kind of problems the modern ones do.
If freedom really is "the problem", creating more hierarchies will not be much of a solution, since it just gives more power to a select few at the top of the hierarchy, and they still answer to no one.
"Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. "
Seems like that's what we have now. Its just the ones with the biggest weapons and fewest moral compunctions feign legitimacy.
"but when you tell me that I'm mistaken for believing that this country is worth fighting for, when you tell me that everyone who believes in defending this nation is wrong for wanting to do so, that's when I have a problem."
I don't believe I ever actually said that. Right and wrong is up to the individual to decide. I might think you're misguided for doing so, but I don't believe I have any unique insight into right and wrong.
"You won't do anything to me; you've admitted that"
You are indeed correct, I have no intention of doing you or anybody else any harm.
You might want to ask yourself, in your daily introspection, exactly why someone not wanting to harm anyone angers you so, and indeed, would it anger you more or less if I wanted to do you specific harm?
I have every intention of leaving someday, and rest assured that if I had half as much money as Alec Baldwin I'd have done so long ago.
" I got ya, so the revolutionary war was unnecessary to separate us from the British. "
Yes
"The declaration of Independence, the Constitution is just so much fluff, and no one needed to have died for this country to have been formed. "
If they needed to the country wasn't worth forming in the first place.
"What I'd really like to do is slap the crap out of you a couple of times to see if you really stand by your convictions, as I start to escalate the force applied, at some point one of us will be dead."
You're an awful violent person to be claiming the moral high ground here.
"My blood runs hot when someone like you avails yourself to at least this modicum of freedom we enjoy while insulting those who helped provide it. "
Who asked you to provide me with anything? Damned sure wasn't me?
Your brand of freedom, which can only be gained by killing some and enslaving others, I can do without.
Again, you're making the same mistake the last guy made. Its a common error, so its not surprising.
Freedom is not provided by the American government. Indeed, if we look at the evidence it is more often assailed by governments than protected by it. Those who in the past "died for freedom" at best did a very incomplete job, for we are far from free.
Likewise, just because a third world despot might attempt to subjugate me at some later date is no reason to submit to first world despots. Getting away from a system of being "ruled" by others should be our goal.
I'm not convinced there is ever a good reason to kill.
Seriously though, not every clothing company on the planet does that. There are plenty of socially responsible textile companies on the planet... I can send you a list of some if you'd like... drop me an email, just drop the first dot in my URL and make it into an @
Ok, bad choice of words...I mean, all things being equal, the nonprofit ought to be able to have lower prices because it only needs to break even.
Actually that's very true of private charities.
The thing is private charities still have to convince people to give them money, so they still have something similar to the profit motive keeping them from wasting money.
Not everything in an anarchy has to be "for profit", it just has to be funded voluntarily.
If the private sector really doesn't want to do something, maybe it just shouldn't be done?
Why should money be stolen from me to provide services for others? Can politicians really pat themselves on the back for their compassion when all they're doing is being generous with other peoples' money?
Municipal agencies are horribly inefficient. Its nice rhetoric to say they aren't, but the real world, where we live, says otherwise. I can provide hundreds of books with data supporting my case... can you provide one?
Is anything you believe based on anything but an innate dislike of the profit motive?
Instead of stealing from everyone and calling it fairness what about not stealing from anyone and letting whatever happens, happen?
Is a society that is, by your own admission, unfree really worth saving?
Also, why on earth are you attributing "pay as you go" to Republicans? It seems like they're the ones behind the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent murdering civilians around the world.
1. Being in the military is being involved in killing, directly or indirectly. Bandaging up people so they can go out and kill more people is being an accessory to murder.
2. Appeal to emotion.
3. Except I don't have a right to do as I choose. The fact that they are conscripting me to work against my will underscores that point.
"Jail is better than being hung" is very much a matter of opinion, especially considering the sort of treatment political prisoners of this sort generally receive.
Needing to make a profit is quite an incentive to not be inefficient, actually.
Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.
That was actually one of the positives, from my perspective.
Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them?
Whoever wanted them in the first place
Do you force people to serve?
No
Or do they only protect those willing to pay?
That's up to them.
Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.
Again, that's what I was shooting for.
Of course, anarchy is very unstable (I know, I know..) so groups end up combining (voluntarily or not) and you end up with the US becoming a group of independant states.
Not neccesarily a forgone conclusion. There are plenty of examples of anarchies that have lasted for several generations. Likewise, many governments don't last more than a week or two.
And then someone comes in and conquers us and we end up paying taxes again:-)
Or someone doesn't and we don't. Either way, we're spared taxation for awhile.
No, the system we have is far from perfect, but I really don't see the total abolition of taxes bringing about much improvement. Of course, if you have the answers worked out, I'd be happy to hear them; I'm always willing to save money:-)
Actually if you're looking for more fully flushed out theories on how all of this will work the site Anti-State.com is an excellent resource.
Efficiencies of Government? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Government is notoriously inefficient at providing services, and usually makes up for it by outlawing private competition and forcing those who don't use the service to pay for it.
Just because a service is provided privately also does not mean those without money will be excluded from it. Likewise, the poor are denied multiple services which the government offers if they can't pay for them.
"There is a small difference. You pay income tax as a fraction of money you make. You aren't forced to pay taxes - just don't have any income. You are forced to serve in a draft (if we had one)."
That's true, the income tax is slightly better than a draft in that regard.
"That being said, I do think a draft would be a good thing for two reasons: 1) people do benefit from the existence of organized society, and so it should be a duty to help protect said society."
What about those of us who neither benefit from nor desire it? Why force us to work for what you want?
"2) If the sons and daughters of everyone were in harms way maybe we'd be less prone to imperial adventures."
That's a bit like strapping dynamite to everyone to make us all care about terrorism, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
We're not only allowed to think we are free, its required of us by law now.
Just because they didn't own the whole continent doesn't mean taking what they did own was just.
Not only that, they don't even offer that T-shirt in a very wide range of sizes.
Assuming that was true,its an unsolvable problem anyhow.
Even if we had a one world government, which seems to be where you're headed, that government itself would be independant (failing some intergalactic government) and fall victim to the same kind of problems the modern ones do.
If freedom really is "the problem", creating more hierarchies will not be much of a solution, since it just gives more power to a select few at the top of the hierarchy, and they still answer to no one.
"Because then you have anarchy, which might be fun in concept, but the reality is, whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest moral compunctions wins. "
Seems like that's what we have now. Its just the ones with the biggest weapons and fewest moral compunctions feign legitimacy.
"but when you tell me that I'm mistaken for believing that this country is worth fighting for, when you tell me that everyone who believes in defending this nation is wrong for wanting to do so, that's when I have a problem."
I don't believe I ever actually said that. Right and wrong is up to the individual to decide. I might think you're misguided for doing so, but I don't believe I have any unique insight into right and wrong.
I was just wondering where I could get a C compiler.
Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if I was condemned to hell for taking "thou shalt not kill" at face value?
"You won't do anything to me; you've admitted that"
You are indeed correct, I have no intention of doing you or anybody else any harm.
You might want to ask yourself, in your daily introspection, exactly why someone not wanting to harm anyone angers you so, and indeed, would it anger you more or less if I wanted to do you specific harm?
I have every intention of leaving someday, and rest assured that if I had half as much money as Alec Baldwin I'd have done so long ago.
" I got ya, so the revolutionary war was unnecessary to separate us from the British. "
Yes
"The declaration of Independence, the Constitution is just so much fluff, and no one needed to have died for this country to have been formed. "
If they needed to the country wasn't worth forming in the first place.
"What I'd really like to do is slap the crap out of you a couple of times to see if you really stand by your convictions, as I start to escalate the force applied, at some point one of us will be dead."
You're an awful violent person to be claiming the moral high ground here.
"My blood runs hot when someone like you avails yourself to at least this modicum of freedom we enjoy while insulting those who helped provide it. "
Who asked you to provide me with anything? Damned sure wasn't me?
Your brand of freedom, which can only be gained by killing some and enslaving others, I can do without.
Expecting the government to obey its own laws is going to leave you disappointed most of the time.
Again, you're making the same mistake the last guy made. Its a common error, so its not surprising.
Freedom is not provided by the American government. Indeed, if we look at the evidence it is more often assailed by governments than protected by it. Those who in the past "died for freedom" at best did a very incomplete job, for we are far from free.
Likewise, just because a third world despot might attempt to subjugate me at some later date is no reason to submit to first world despots. Getting away from a system of being "ruled" by others should be our goal.
I'm not convinced there is ever a good reason to kill.
That would be an accurate statement.
You sure like the idea of people dying, don't you?
Sure, that's being complicit in murder too.
Seriously though, not every clothing company on the planet does that. There are plenty of socially responsible textile companies on the planet... I can send you a list of some if you'd like... drop me an email, just drop the first dot in my URL and make it into an @
Ok, bad choice of words...I mean, all things being equal, the nonprofit ought to be able to have lower prices because it only needs to break even.
Actually that's very true of private charities.
The thing is private charities still have to convince people to give them money, so they still have something similar to the profit motive keeping them from wasting money.
Not everything in an anarchy has to be "for profit", it just has to be funded voluntarily.
Not a true statement in that entire post.
Many historical anarchies have not led to the described situation... just like not every democracy winds up an empire bent on world domination.
If the private sector really doesn't want to do something, maybe it just shouldn't be done?
Why should money be stolen from me to provide services for others? Can politicians really pat themselves on the back for their compassion when all they're doing is being generous with other peoples' money?
Municipal agencies are horribly inefficient. Its nice rhetoric to say they aren't, but the real world, where we live, says otherwise. I can provide hundreds of books with data supporting my case... can you provide one?
Is anything you believe based on anything but an innate dislike of the profit motive?
Instead of stealing from everyone and calling it fairness what about not stealing from anyone and letting whatever happens, happen?
Is a society that is, by your own admission, unfree really worth saving?
Also, why on earth are you attributing "pay as you go" to Republicans? It seems like they're the ones behind the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent murdering civilians around the world.
1. Being in the military is being involved in killing, directly or indirectly. Bandaging up people so they can go out and kill more people is being an accessory to murder.
2. Appeal to emotion.
3. Except I don't have a right to do as I choose. The fact that they are conscripting me to work against my will underscores that point.
"Jail is better than being hung" is very much a matter of opinion, especially considering the sort of treatment political prisoners of this sort generally receive.
Needing to make a profit is quite an incentive to not be inefficient, actually.
:-)
:-)
Without taxes, the government has no money. (People, as a rule, aren't going to give money to the government if they don't have to) Thus, no real power. Since the gov. doesn't have money, no police. With no police, no laws.
That was actually one of the positives, from my perspective.
Of course, the people can put together a militia, but then who pays them?
Whoever wanted them in the first place
Do you force people to serve?
No
Or do they only protect those willing to pay?
That's up to them.
Pretty soon you have rival militias wandering around enforcing thier own laws; in a word, anarchy.
Again, that's what I was shooting for.
Of course, anarchy is very unstable (I know, I know..) so groups end up combining (voluntarily or not) and you end up with the US becoming a group of independant states.
Not neccesarily a forgone conclusion. There are plenty of examples of anarchies that have lasted for several generations. Likewise, many governments don't last more than a week or two.
And then someone comes in and conquers us and we end up paying taxes again
Or someone doesn't and we don't. Either way, we're spared taxation for awhile.
No, the system we have is far from perfect, but I really don't see the total abolition of taxes bringing about much improvement. Of course, if you have the answers worked out, I'd be happy to hear them; I'm always willing to save money
Actually if you're looking for more fully flushed out theories on how all of this will work the site Anti-State.com is an excellent resource.
Forcing someone to work for someone else is slavery. That's the fucking definition.
So please, spare us the mock indignation.
Efficiencies of Government? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Government is notoriously inefficient at providing services, and usually makes up for it by outlawing private competition and forcing those who don't use the service to pay for it.
Just because a service is provided privately also does not mean those without money will be excluded from it. Likewise, the poor are denied multiple services which the government offers if they can't pay for them.
"There is a small difference. You pay income tax as a fraction of money you make. You aren't forced to pay taxes - just don't have any income. You are forced to serve in a draft (if we had one)."
That's true, the income tax is slightly better than a draft in that regard.
"That being said, I do think a draft would be a good thing for two reasons: 1) people do benefit from the existence of organized society, and so it should be a duty to help protect said society."
What about those of us who neither benefit from nor desire it? Why force us to work for what you want?
"2) If the sons and daughters of everyone were in harms way maybe we'd be less prone to imperial adventures."
That's a bit like strapping dynamite to everyone to make us all care about terrorism, isn't it?