Truthseeker, maybe you should change your handle to Witchhunt

Define statist, or better yet, just win an argument.

There are those sentient folks on this forum worthy of an occasional argument. Pardon me if I don't find you among them.

I'd personally find it undignified to insult someone and scurry away rather than back it up.

I guess I'll have to keep working on lowering my standards and expectations.

Your epic (if losing) battle against nearly the entire forum on the jailing of the school teacher who engaged in sex with adult students was merely the most recent example.

There have been others, of course. But I find it futile to spar with the conceptually challenged. Particularly those who find their world bettered by controlling others.

Look at the fedUp TOS and statement of purpose.

Does it say Anarchist Cookbook or CopKillaForumz?

It's pretty clear about what the aims were and they're redress of, well

Quote:

he FedUpUSA Forum is intended for General non-stock based news and stories about political grift, corruption and fraud in the financial system and government. FedUpUSA was founded for the express purpose of helping people organize in furtherance of the goal of returning lawfulness to our government and financial system, which means EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW (as opposed to 'laws are only for the little guy'). This Forum is specifically for ENCOURAGEMENT of activities that expose the fraud and corruption, whether it be contacting Congress, protesting, support of various judicial or legislative action, writing articles or op-eds, or other means of attempting to regain an honest, law abiding government. People who perpetually post derogatory remarks, put-downs or other statements of discouragement or ridicule of other's efforts will NOT be tolerated.

Debate on those issues is encouraged. However, violation of any of the following rules will result in a complete and total ban on access to Tickerforum

If you guys want to turn this into the "only the purest of heart church of you and me, and I'm not so sure about you," that's fine, but it's in no way in keeping with FedUp's stated purpose. This place was hoping to change things in the real world.

Lots of questions have lots of angles and if I'm addressing things in the here-and-now as I find them, that doesn't mean I agree with what we find, just the reality that we live here. On the issue of the teacher, I saw it as a corrupt use of the gov classroom. How that makes me a statist is an interesting question. I didn't say, "yay I'm so glad most of the schools are state schools" (my wife teaches in a non-state private one), or "all kids should be required to be in state schools" or "... in school" or anything beyond IN THE SYSTEM AS WE FIND IT, overblown and baroque as it is, with as much of life regulated as it is, it's internally consistent to limit (with hard penalties) a very few choices about how the state's classroom is used.

So while Goldman loots the Treasury and, oh **** it you know the litany, you're picking ME to argue against when I'm trying to give a gentle chiding about where the problems that need solving are? Questioning whether the state has ANY right to exist or has ANY legitimacy beyond the "tip of my nose" status is fine for debate among those sitting outside the world, but isn't really in keeping with people who want to reform government. Start another forum about minarchy, and maybe I have informed opinions there too.

LK wrote..

I saw it as a corrupt use of the gov classroom. How that makes me a statist is an interesting question.

Actually, you found an enormous amount of agreement on your first assertion. Where you parted company with the main body of thought here was in your insistence on a very heavy handed (and expensive) punishment for legal behavior using very poor judgment. Not to rehash that diatribe, here.

For the record, see if you can find a single quote of mine among my seven thousand odd posts that justifies throwing the "anarchist" epithet this way. I am, quite simply a small "l" libertarian, and am quite content for you to order YOUR personal world how best it suits you. I part company when you get on the horse about dictating to adult humans how they should choose.

There's a reason that Lk is the ONLY TFer that I have on permanent ignore. It appears to live in or near the DC Pustule, which seems to affect one's outlook on enslaving the rest of the peasants, and not in a good way.

Quote:

Huh? This is basic **** everyone should have thought through around 14 or 15
years old.

Bull****.

Quote:

In fact if you didn't, your homework is to expose yourself to the canon of political philosphy before pretending to have an opinion. This is a critique without letting the advocates of Liberalism make their case, which includes a state. This stuff is so profoundly answered that people don't even feel the need to make the case anymore, which why you don't see it much.

When the Founding Fathers established this country, there were parts of the continent where a peasant who so desired could escape the long arm of the government. This was an extension of the original escape from the Pustule of the Europeeing governments. Of course, the Statists couldn't have THAT situation, so as the continent filled up, they continued to extend their sway. Now, they propose to have spy drones flying over everything, because SOMEWHERE, SOME PEASANT MIGHT BE DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT PERMISSION, SUPERVISION, OR REGULATION. This thought causes many of the Fascists in and around the Pustule to wake up some nights in a cold sweat.

Quote:

Of course Obama and Mitt could answer this, they went Harvard ****ing Law school. You guys are kidding, right?

Maybe Mitt could, but Obama is an affirmative action dolt/doper who got a free ride through life, including intellectually. He might be able to spew some Red Diaper Doper blather about it at you, but no, he couldn't answer the question.



I must say, Lk - you never fail to entertain, but if I want to mainline serious Statist bull****ters, I could just watch some Youtubes of Billy Clinton or Jon Corzine, two unprosecuted & unconvicted felon poster boys for the elitists of The Pustule.

So, you'll go back on ignore when this dustup is through.

Please ask RJ and Steph to rewrite the mission and TOS to say "libertarian forum" and have at it.

I came here because around 2004-5 I saw the credit issues becoming a literal threat to our country and was appalled the crisis was hijacked the way it was. Fraud and corruption were and are serious issues that need redress. If this forum was called libertarian forum I'd have been elsewhere.

If RJ and Steph want the whole thing to be a bait and switch, that's their right I gues. Meanwhile in the real world, the ****-slide goes unabated.

The reason why I brought up anarchism of the linked post and the thread and often the group, not necessarily yours, is because any system that enforces righhasidic forced to include the institutions of courts and police. This of course requires taxes. Even a minimalist state, then, collects taxes and enforces laws at the end of a gun. Anyone, like the originial post , who objects in principle to those objects to any government. That's not asking to shrink or limit government, it's an anarchist appeal.

The original post was absolutely brilliant. That you can reduce that thoughtful and piquant posting to an appeal for anarchy is ample demonstration of your obdurate nature.

Lk
You have yet to demonstrate that you are not a slave!

Its a cage in your own mind. Acknowledging it is terrifying, yet freeing in the most profound way.

You know what is going on, you are intelligent. You just simply refuse to accept it for whatever conscious or unconscious reason. Why do you think you were drawn to even respond to me on what you felt was a case closed anarchist subject in your first few posts in this thread?

Truth, even being as disconnected from the system as you are, are you not still a slave to some parts of our .gov institution that has run afoul of the concept of by the people, for the people?

Quote:

More precisely, is he permitted other than conditional use of things? For instance, that which he may think of as “his” home. If it is in fact “his,” then surely that means no one else has legal claim to it and cannot take it away from him once he has paid the original seller in full. Ask him about the large payments he must make to others every year, forever, in order to be allowed to remain on “his” property. Remind him that plantation slaves also had homes – in the sense that they were allowed conditional use of dwellings. Dwellings ultimately owned by someone else. The slaves were permitted to use these dwellings so long as their labor provided enough return to the true owners of the dwelling. A slave who refused to work – who declined to make payments in the form of his labor then (and tax payments now) would soon discover who the true owner of “his” dwelling really was.

The bottom line is, the government charging you rent with option to steal on your COMPLETELY PAID-FOR home is a fairly recent development. I'll bet the majority of states didn't fully implement the "theft if you don't pay rent" endgame until after the 1950s.

Lk wrote..

Fraud and corruption were and are serious issues that need redress.

I think you have your answer from the elitists in the Pustule in two words:

Jon Corzine

As I was sayin.

I have found asking the good question to be very effective. It brings the topic into focus. Gives both parties a point of agree/disagree. Setting boundaries so to speak. Leading questions lead to good discussions Depending on the honesty/integrity of those involved.

Uppity, did I ever say I'd disapprove of you having a place to go outside the excessively oppressive realm or jurisdiction of the state? I think you're mad at someone else, but. Is that youve cleansed Fedup of anyone of any dissenting thought there's no one to pick on anymore, and you're forced to use me as a stand in. Fine. Now how far do you really want to push the insults? I don't go in that direction with you.

Truth, the existance of a state AT ALL presupposes certain elements which are incompatible with the OP. If one said, I'd like to roll the state back by 99%, the OP would still object because ANY state is law, force, and imposition.

Spaz I didn't know it was incumbent on me to prove I'm not a slave. If you really want to bother with that it may take a while, and I don't know it's a good use of time. First, we'd have to carefully define the terms and lay out necessary characteristics.

I already agree that --as with many complex relations-- that's are aspects that have parallels.

Lk, we're all adults here (I think). Most of us understand the workings of government, and the need for laws and taxation. I think many of us object to the relentless sneakiness of the Federal, State and local governments in extending their sway over EVERY aspect of our lives, with no chance of rolling back the bull****.

We peasants can NEVER have an adult conversation with the 800-pound greedy retarded child that is the government about giving back even some of the stuff it took from us while we weren't looking.

I'll run just this ONE small proposal by you, and see if you agree. How's about we make a new deal about our property taxes. If you guys think your property tax assessments are on the up-and-up, any peasant, at any time, can sell you the property at 75% of the value you've declared that it has. If the property is worth as much as the assessor says it is, then the government would make an easy 25% profit. Basically, a killing.

What chance do you think that proposal would have passing ANY of the state legislatures? It would be a cold day in hell.

I can think of many more examples, but that'll do for starters.

Truthseeker I'm somewhat surprised you reduced everything I said to just that.  It doesn't even feign open-mindedness, which is ironic with your TF handle. I would characterize it almost as obdurate nature, LOL. But you're bringing up a real point and I'll try to reply, sine it's Saturday morning and I have a bit of free time, unlike my normal schedule. 

You keep characterizing it as brilliant, and while I'm glad you liked it, I don't see it that way. I'm not new to political thought or political argument and debate and so I have seen the themes and tropes over and over and I'm familiar with how they go and the code.  Ill make my anarchist point directly by replying directly to the OP.

Before doing so let me make this difficult for myself and clarify what I mean and choose the hardest case shaker which to argue (which is what intellectually honest people do, and it's one of the "rules," in more formal settings).

There is a difference between anarchism and the smallest possible state and this difference has some characteristics, we'd all have to agree.  So, again to rigorous here, I'll grant the best case, then advocate for the MINIMAL, smallest, least intrusive, most legitimate, decent and least-objectionable state.  For brevity I'll call it SGP, smallest pssible gov, and it's *A*dvocates, SPGAs. With me still?

If one is (consistent with the FedUp stated mission and most "adults" as Uppity just called us) going to argue that there should be minimal intrusion but still a working state to function at least as an enforcer of rights and the occasional rational arbiter between competing claims, we already have obligated the existence of a formal court system. A formal court system is an involved undertaking if you value citizens' rights, because there are numerous steps to ensure that person's rights are upheld. 

So let's take even then simplest example, even the most easy to agree on. If Mr Smith is an aggressive ******* criminal and rapes Miss Jones. Any non-anarchist libetarian, or SPGA, would agree that is a clear violation of all the rules, especially the NAP.  We agree on that I assume.  So what's next?  

Does the rapist Mr Smith get to******just because he's bigger and stronger than Miss Jones?  Of course not, some sort of justice is required. Do we still agree?  So what's the nature of that justice? Certainly Miss Jones's brother could just go pursue vigilante justice, assuming she has strong people on her side who are able and willing to pursue that kind of justice, etc.   But SPGA recognize there needs to be a less arbitrary form of justice to ensure the rights of its citizens, because there are chances of false accusation, whether malicious or confused. So a citizen or freeman is presumed innocent until proven guilty, to ensure and support his rights.   We're still together, right?  The SPGA requires its small government to have complex courts. So what's next?

If Mr Smith is an aggressor, and did commit the accused act, he's not likely to turn himself into the court to be judges and punished, is he?  Has a society ever existed that limited itself to voluntary punishment?  No, of course not.  There has to a powerful enough force to compel Mr Smith to court to be judged.  Like it or not, this force may have to be quite forceful, even prepared for violence on a larger scale than the (allegedly) aggressively and powerful Mr Smith. So, suddenly, we have men with guns, don't we? Is there any other way?  Should choose otherwise, to send Mr Smith a letter to appear and if he chooses not to, no force?  Of course not, the threat of force, and even overwhelming force is required, even if he's innocent. This is the "gun in the room" that anyone familiar with these positions already knows well.  Sadly tree is no other option. Failing to have that ultimate threat is the same as allowing the factually guilty to choose to avoid punishment. So any court system, even the SPG court ultimately imposes the gun in the room on any citizen, if there's a credible claim against him, even if he's later found innocent. Any SPGA has to accept the "gun in the room."

Of course most issues in life are not so stark, because most of us live peaceful and unaggressive lives and don't ever rise to this level of high drama. But it's still the model of all justice, even for the SPGA.  So even though we won't be involved in that, there are still numerous smaller disagreements that need to be solved even by civil court. Traditional basic classical Liberalism (the centuries old kind, not the convention on TV this week, LOL) still maintains numerous places where different applications require interpretation and can get get subtle, and unless you want might makes right, there needs to be rational arbiter between competing claims. Enforcement of contracts is the first of the obligations for a free society. Consider the "fraud" that's brought up repeatedly in the FedUp charter and which the site owner rightly rails against. Differing actors in an agreement may view the situation differently and a disagreement ensues, especially when interests collide. It has to be arbitered, and eventually enforced, or there is no such thing as contracts. But the enforcement requires both parties to show up.  What if Mr Martin has defrauded Mr Paul in a business deal? Mr Martin already has Mr Paul's money. Mr Martin has zero incentive to agree to have a case judged since it's all downside for him. So shall Mr Paul have no redress?  That would not be the answer in the classical Western system.  Even in an SPG system Mr Martin is compelled to answer in court, and that compulsion is backed up with..... The gun in the room. If Mr Martin doesn't answer the ten letters from lawyers and the court, eventually the court must either decide to ignore Mr Paul's claim (an abrogation of Paul's rights) or to literally physically go get Mr Martin, prepared for the fact that Mr Martin may object.  How does the SPGA resolve this? By acknowledging the right of the state to use force, and ultimately the threat of even death even against someone who hasn't yet been proven to have done anything wrong. 

So in sum with this small piece of the argument a non-Anarchist SPGA recognizes that in extremis, any government that enforces citizens rights at base must ultimately have the recourse of physical threat in the direction of its own non-slave, legitimate, citizens.  

Now let's turn to the OP's words, and I'm starting at the beginning, not cherry picking, but being intellectually honest

Quote:

To be in a position – to be entitled – to use violence to enforce compliance.

A slave is not at liberty to act as he wishes to act. He must do as he is told – and if he does not, he can expect physical punishment and that punishment will not be considered assault. The slave must accept his punishment.

There is no appeal, no recourse. He must bow low and submit – or risk the repercussions, which ultimately include death.

Yes, a citizen in SPGA is also in this position. There is no way around it. This is not an argument against slavery, it's an argument against even SPG. 

This could take a while, and I'm doing this without bringing in the classical arguments that explain the legitimacy of a state, because we'd be here for weeks... So his statement that we are each in extremis the possible subjects of legitimate force isn't inconsistent with traditional small government citizenship or non-slave status. In fact the objection can ONLY be made inconsistently with SPGA, i.e. advocating for no government at all. 

Next point, in HIS words,

Quote:

The slave, most obviously, owns nothing – because he controls nothing. He may be allowed to use things. But the owner of these things – himself included – is someone else. Someone else gets to say yes – or no. When – and where. How – and how much. The slave has no real say – in that he is never in a position to say no. Not without consequences raining down upon him.
[and later but the same point]
Ask whether he is compelled to give up whatever portion of the fruits of his labors others decide they are entitled to – and how this differs from the slave in the field being forced to pick cotton for the benefit of others . . . .  Ask him what he thinks will happen if he declines to hand over the fruits of his labor… .  

So abstracting away from the "gun in the room" point, OP is objecting to right of the state to tax. Note VERY carefully he doesn't say how much in taxes, just that we are slaves because "we are compelled to give up the fruits of our labors," which is denominated of course in cash, and paid as taxes.  So if we agreed above that even minimal protection of one's rights involves courts and its officers, somewhere there is to be a bill for it. Taxation has been the only answer that's ever worked. There are places without taxes such as income tax-free KSA, but they have a different view of rights and don't presume citizens have the rights we have in our system, which is why it's a literal kingdom with subjects.

Again using the OP's point, not veering off into the hundreds of books I could cite or arguments I would make, the thought is incompatible with SPGA. It's an anarchist position.  The SPGA position recognizes the need for a state to require some small (certainly not like today's huge chunk) required tax.  And it cannot be voluntary or unenforced or we quickly run right into the "gun in the room" problem above. Then OP's objection 1. is that fruit of ones labor is taken, and 2. That the decision happens elsewhere. I think I've dealt with (1) enough, that SPGA requires one, and since the author isn't objecting to the amount (as I do) but to the principle, it's incompatible with SPGA.  It's an anarchist argument. 

So with (2) we similarly find that somewhere decisions have to be made and that like all decisions there will be those who agree and those who don't.  So shall taxes only be levied on those who agree?  If not, then by definition those who disagree on the amounts or details are still forced to pay a tax or fee that he doesn't control. Such is the compromise of living in a system. To object to it is an objection to the principle of government, i.e. and anarchist objection.

I'll stop there because this is already too long, but I'll sum it up by saying a fair definition of slavery would have to lay out characteristics. These objections the OP made sound fine as a rhetorical point but don't stand up to a rigorous definition or examination.  There are numerous intrusions of pure liberty which are consistent with citizenship in an SPG. 

Spazznout wrote..

Truth, even being as disconnected from the system as you are, are you not still a slave to some parts of our .gov institution that has run afoul of the concept of by the people, for the people?

I suspect our farm would be sold should we elect to discontinue the payment of property taxes. I still do choose to carry a current driver's license. Two of my vehicles are registered and insured. So, yes, the "state" still dictates some of what I do. We have minimized it to the degree practical.

LK, thanks for the refresher course. Familiarity with Locke, Hobbes, and von Mises and the time and condition of their circumstances are already long considered and forms the bedrock understanding of my political opinion.

What unreconstructed apologists for the state generally ignore is the creeping mentality that statism is somehow "safer" for them (and others...always thinking how to manipulate the behavior of others!)

You, currently, live in a system where well north of 50% of your productive endeavor is taken in taxes. You have permission to "own" your home and property, provided you continue, for the entirety of your life and for the lifetimes of your heirs or assigns, to pay whatever the state says is appropriate as a continuing "property tax". "Your" property is forfeit, otherwise.

You need a "permit" to build so much as a tool shed. Be sure to have the plans approved or we'll tear it down for you. If someone borrows your car and fails to stop completely before making that right turn, the ticket generated by the photo sensor will be delivered to your house. Please pay it.

If your house is mis-reported as a place where drugs may have been dealt, please be careful NOT to be holding your legal and registered weapon when the SWAT team batters down your door, or you'll be summarily executed with impunity by the state officers discharging their lawful responsibilities.

Oh, and as of a year or so ago, if you happen to be overseas and become suspected as an "enemy combatant", your president can have you summarily executed without accusation, trial, or fear of reprisal.

You can continue to argue that these (and many, many other) egregious realities are merely extensions of a reasonable amount of law and order. And I will continue to ridicule the very idea.

As an aside, Truthseeker, the reason I don't find it brilliant is because to me it's just rehashed well known old arguments. As a silly example, if you talk to advocates of or peruse pro-marijuana sites you'll see that every other stoner knows that hemp was an industrial material and makes good cloth and rope. So my dad is a widely educated and well read guy, and I see the books on his shelves, so if he'd said to me "hemp was an industrial material used widely for rope in the 18th C," I'd knows he was reading about the old British navy, or about industrial prduction and/or agriculture in the 18th C, and that this tidbit of knowledge exists in a broad and deeply understood context. If Karl brought up that point I'd assume he knows what he's talking about, and he's demonstrated plenty of interest in materials, etc, so I'd figure it's knowledge point 25,435,654 he's got.

If by contrast I'm reading in the park and some rastafari-inspired idiot keeps kicking his hackey sack onto my papers, and told me "hemp was an industrial material and makes good cloth and rope," I'd ask him, "how does it compare to sisal and jute; how about to linen and flax?" Obviously the idiot would reply, "what, dude, huh.? He's half baked and completely unaware except that he's sought out a few tidbits that reinforce his prejudice, and certainly not interested in the whole picture.

Perhaps the first time one hears that fact it's interesting and even though provoking, but once one's heard it 500 times it's clearly just a well-worn trope and it's recognizable instantly for what it is. And it's also instanty apparent who is using it as a spoon-fed tidbit and who's got the real goods.

Brawndo's got electrolytes
Brawndo's got electrolytes
Brawndo's got electrolytes

Eventually the protagonist snaps back

"Do you even know what electrolytes are?"!!!!

And it's a necessary development, and funny because that's how life is

Am I calling the OP an idiot? Certainly not. It's good rhetorical prose and makes a good rhetorical point. I'm sure he and I would agree on plenty, and I'll assume he's smart and informed. Still I don't see it as brilliant at all, because it's the same points, and because it makes a few mistakes that don't stand up to critique.

Agreed Truthseeker

And yet you completely avoided the point. Quantity and principle are different. The OP's points aren't consistent with even the smallest most restrained government. The mere existence of ANY government imposes force and tax. The problem with broadly citing Locke and hobbes and especially mises is that we could end up arguing about interpretation, so I took the slower route for simplicity, not condescension. Now if one agrees to some basic limits on pure liberty for the sake of minimal government, appeals to where the right line is drawn are decided elsewhere.

Now I have Saturday plans and so am taking a break in arguing and instead driving my spectacular German car 55 miles west on a dry sunny warm day, lamenting all the way that the petty tyranny of the nanny state forces me --ultimately at gunpoint-- to drive at speeds appropriate for a laden 1951 pickup truck, and that in my state I pay thousands a year in personal property tax for the right to own it, but barred from using it as I see fit (and my track days prove I'm capable). I live close to town and can't even build a garage on my own property to contain it or my other three toys, because of the building envelope codes, so they devalue quickly in the rain, UV, and dust. It's not as if I'm happy about far this has spread either. But the argument should be about where the limits lie, not if there ought to be a government at all.

Moreover in this forum, if anyone respects its stated mission and TOS we should be arguig about limiting fraud and abuse.

The enemies of freedom always take the same tack - obfuscate and dissemble. Damn pure rhetoric with faint praise, vaguely insinuate violence by freedom lovers (who want only to be left alone, and grant others the same), and then run voluminous and indecipherable blather all day until the poor well meaning individual who lowered himself to argue with him scratches his head and slinks away. "Never argue with a fool. He'll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Look at Congress for examples - let's compromise and get along to get along.
There is no compromise on pure principle, only on its application. Eric laid out as pure, and as undistilled a work of rhetoric as I"ve ever read, and most of the thread has, sadly, but predictably, been taken up by the dissembler efforts to ground its potential.
As I said, perfect litmus. As a nation conceived in liberty and freedom, we didn't get here overnight - it's been a long, slippery slope, with the bodies of freedom-loving people strewn along it by the forces of statism and those who are most comfortable with themselves and others in chains. It's easy to see by just watching here what happens when freedom, absolute non-aggressive, truth raises its head for a moment, isn't it?
First principles - truth.

LK wrote..

The OP's points aren't consistent with even the smallest most restrained government.

It has been several generation since there was an example, ANYWHERE of "small, restrained government".

And even with the abuses heaped upon us in OUR OWN LIFETIMES, you continue to apologize for the continued implementation of said abuse. You are a part of the problem.

As to your last point, look a little deeper. There is PLENTY of posting on this forum about fraud and abuse---much of it, far too much of it, unprosecuted. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Here is a good question. Did we ever have a choice? We could have voted but were we really given a choice? Dumb and dumber are not choices. Its like a rapist asking which hole first.

Truth I am apologizing for what exactly? By saying a lot of sloppy thought here is inconsistent with even the smallest government (and I do so for a purpose of course, hoping the forum can behave in a way slightly less navel-gazingly impotent and toward the stated TOS and mission of the forum) I am doig what, again? You're literally making no sense.

I made an objection to anarchism, and tried at length to document why I saw it where I did. From that you take the position that I'm supporting (apologizing for) something happening in current or recent politics?

You're not even feigning intellectual integrity anymore.

Downrange im just gonna respond without any editing of your post

> The enemies of freedom always take the same tack - obfuscate and dissemble.

Did neither. Tried earnestly at great length to make as clear an objection as possible, with numerous places you could object to my logic

> Damn pure rhetoric with faint praise, vaguely insinuate violence by freedom lovers

Insinuated nothing of the sort

> (who want only to be left alone, and grant others the same), and then run voluminous and indecipherable blather all day until the poor well meaning individual who lowered himself to argue with him scratches his head and slinks away.

Not at all, I recapitulated a tiny slice of arguments Truth knows quite well. He quickly summed it saying he knows Locke and Hobbes; I instantly agreed. Nothing voluminous about that unless you failed to follow it. No indecipherable blather and no burden to Truthseeker to answer something strange and unknown, requiring time.

You're just wrong on every point you make... It's amazing

> "Never argue with a fool. He'll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Look at Congress for examples - let's compromise and get along to get along.
There is no compromise on pure principle, only on its application. Eric laid out as pure, and as undistilled a work of rhetoric as I"ve ever read, and most of the thread has, sadly, but predictably, been taken up by the dissembler efforts to ground its potential.

You don't know what dissembles means? You've now used it wrong twice in one brief post. Oh you think it means something like "disassemble." To dissemble involves hiding, where I was trying to do the opposite, bring the potentially concealed to light. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can show me where or how, but my attempt was the opposite of your accusation.

> As I said, perfect litmus. As a nation conceived in liberty and freedom,

Indeed, but intentionally not unfettered freedom. There was still government and it included "the gun in the room," and financing of government through fees, etc. If you'd been accused of a crime (even incorrectly)y, those men who conceived the nation in liberty and freedom would've sent armed men to collect you. Even though you're a citizen not a slave, you could still be treated with violence in the state you're praising here. If you'd fought back they'd have killed you. I know my history fairly well and that's indisputable. You can't have it both way, do you agree with those who conceived our nation or not?

> we didn't get here overnight - it's been a long, slippery slope, with the bodies of freedom-loving people strewn along it by the forces of statism and those who are most comfortable with themselves and others in chains. It's easy to see by just watching here what happens when freedom, absolute non-aggressive, truth raises its head for a moment, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean but I'd be willing to listen if you could stop with the name calling and try to make a good point.

> First principles - truth.

Agreed

Now, calling me an "enemy of freedom" is just obnoxious. Squelch it, drama queen. If I'm wrong somewhere, point it out., It's an internet forum and you have ample opportunity make a point with some dignity instead of vague, slightly creepy name calling.

I can tell you know you can't win, or you'd have written a much shorter post saying, "Wait, here's your mistake..."

Quote:

Is that youve cleansed Fedup of anyone of any dissenting thought there's no one to pick on anymor

1. I haven't been cleansed as of yet.

-& I would not recommend attempting it.

I'm ...just. NOT. 'normal'..... and the results are likely to be unpredictable and unpleasant and incessant and incessant and incessant...

Go look around in the old Fed-Up K-Hole to see just how ugly it got before the blatant and unapologetic racism and homophobia was effectively mass bilged by Karl.

Sometimes the kitty-litter-box gets so ****ing nasty that grooming can't mitigate the stink and it has to be dumped...


2. The Slaves KNOW they are slaves; they just don't want to be TOLD that they are slaves too often by their 'uppity' kinfolk.

3. I'll give Lk props for holding up a fine argument with logic.
Not sure I agree; but, the original post is only illuminating to the truly intellectually indigent and uneducated...
Too many ****ing 'American' idiots with hy Skoowl diplowmahs and no electricity in their ritalin soaked and oxygen starved brain stems...


The problem is NOT whether or not the Slave recognizes their position or even if they oppose the continuance of the imposition; it is whether or not there is a logical basis for any claim of legitimacy to the construct of slavery whether it be utter and unequivocal, conditional or transitory, based upon a Statist formulation or merely a synergy of oppression and submission 'in loco' betwixt Individuals whether consenting or in contest...


Feel free to **** right here; there is still some relatively clean sand in this little corner near the land mine marker...