[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay. What is to stop the residents of St. Louis from dumping their trash and pollution into the Mississippi River? What can the people in New Orleans or in other cities and towns downstream of them do to stop them? This is what your anarchist/libertarian wet-dreams fail to account for; our actions have far reaching consequences, with repercussions often far beyond what is immediately perceptible.

Ridiculous strawmen. Even in this post I have repeatedly acknowledged that environmental issues, like water and air pollution which cross jurisdictional lines, need coordinated rules, and that there has to be an agreement between the jurisdictions (ie an EPA) to negotiate what is acceptable levels pollution. So this is a non-issue, and yet you guys keep bringing it up over and over and over.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Who is going to coordinate the building of dams, the upkeep of the interstate highway? Who is going to make sure that all of the states maintain a minimum level of standards for safety and the quality of their roads and bridges?

You're kidding, right? You know the government played no role in the building of transportation infrastructure until around the 1930's. Since the government took over the roads and bridges are falling apart due to the tragedy of the commons. Without any government help, by 1930, the private sector built a network with 2500 different light rail (metro) systems so every town in the US had an all-electric, 250k miles of rail, with air-conditioned trains travelling over 100mph, and were building vac-tube (hyperloop) models to allow hyper-sonic transport. Because, before the 1930's, people had a choice in who provided their transportation infrastructure. It was a free market, so all the companies fought to offer the best product at the best price. Since the government took over, it's a market of coercion. The oil industry got Congress to confiscate and destroy all the mass transit systems and force everyone to buy gas-burning cars. Everybody MUST pay taxes that go to these roads and bridges whether they actually use them or not and whether they're well maintained or falling apart. The results are no different than what happens when any monopoly, government or private, forces people to buy products against their will.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Who will be in charge of the power grid?

You mean the power grid which the private sector built and maintained before the government took over?

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What happens to OSHA and other worker protections?

Look at the facts (see chart below). The free market brought about the largest transformation in all human history where laborers went from being dispendable livestock that would work until they died and got used as brick mortar. Osha jumps in and there is no discernable improvement, yet you Osha-defenders keep saying "look at what osha did!!" Pathetic.

[Image: 2008-04-25-ABC-2020-osha.jpg]

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  NASA... dam... Who is going to pay to repair the east coast after every hurricane, or the west coast after every earthquake, or the midwest after every tornado? What happens to FEMA?

You still don't get it. Yeah, if I want to build a luxurious house on the beach in the middle of a hurricane zone, who should pay to insure it? Me? Or a working-class family in North Dakota. Obviously you argue for the latter. And the reason we have SOOO much property damage from natural disasters is because people build property on disaster-prone land, knowing that when things go wrong, somebody else has to foot the bill. If everybody had to pay for their own insurance that was commensurate with the risk they were assuming, guess what, you wouldn't have all those homes built in hurricane zones or along fault lines, so when the natural disasters occurred, the damage would be much less.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Who would set and maintain standards for education? What would prevent states in the Bible Belt from eliminating evolution, cosmology, and critical thinking from their curriculums?

And here it comes down to the elitist thinking that you know better how those bible-thumpers in redneck states should educate their kids. Well guess what. Those rednecks feel just as strongly that all states SHOULD have a currilum that teaches that god made the earth 7,000 years ago. And since you're advocating a winner-takes-all system, and your opponents evenly match your peers, there's just as much as chance that your system will DEPRIVE people of a good education.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I fail to see why you haven't taken the simple option of leaving the country. It's the easiest way to escape the tyranny of the laws of the federal government. I mean, if jumping state lines is a good enough solution, why not move it up a notch and change countries?

So obviously you've never actually read what I wrote. If you did, I've explained my story many times in this forum. I _DID_ leave the country, and lived in Brazil for a while, and then Switzerland. I didn't set foot on US soil for over 10 years, assuming that the US, like every other country in the world except Cuba and N Korea, allows its citizens to simply relocate if they find the federal laws too tyrannical. But then, while in Switzerland, I got paid a visit by your gun-wielding enforcement agents telling me that because I was born in the US, my obligations to the US were lifelong, whether I ever set foot on US soil or not, and that in addition to paying all my local taxes in Switzerland, which I did, I would ALSO have to report to the US everything I do, every transaction I made, forward copies of all my bank statements and credit cards, and pay taxes to the US *IN ADDITION* to Switzerland, AND, they charged me huge, massive penalties for having fled the US and not reported my whereabouts for so long, and threatened to coerce the Swiss to extradite me if I didn't comply willingly. It pisses me off so much when your type says "if you don't like it, there's the door, just leave", and then when people DO leave, you call us traitors and haul us back at gunpoint.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, those are just Republicans. The Democrats are a bunch of spineless pussies that give the Republicans almost everything they want anyways.

Like Obamacare, right?

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  On a small scale, possibly. Sure, have at it hoss. Good luck beating the trend of abysmal failure that has accompanied every every other attempt at this ever.

Uh, we have a historical precedent. Back in the 1970's a libertarian, John Cowperthwaite, asked the UK to let him do just that--set aside a tiny little island as a libertarian paradise. Hong Kong. The UK agreed, and Hong Kong's official policy was 'positive non-interventionism', meaning the government FORCED itself not to intervene. It was the biggest success story every. In just ONE generation that island went from having a per capita annual income of $180/year to surpassing the US, becoming the #1 trading hub in the world, the #1 busiest harbor, the #1 commercial airport, the #1 stock market by size (and #6 overall), one of the lowest crime rates, longest life expectancy. Switzerland also stuck to a libertarian system. Now I dare you to find just ONE example where libertarianism was NOT a huge success.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you are a US citizen on US territory, that's how that fucking works. Don't like it, leave US territory. Then guess what? You are no longer subject to the laws that apply to US citizens on US territory. It really is that simple. I mean, if it works for state lines, right?

How can you be defending a system when you're totally clueless about what the system is???? Read the 'ask a communist' thread where I had this same discussion with Chas, and he also said 'if you don't like it just leave', and when I told him that applies to everyone in the world except those born in N. Korea, Cuba and the US, he didn't believe it. We went through pages and pages of debate on this with links to the US laws before he gave up. Of course, learning that what he thought he knew about the US system was actually wrong didn't change his opinion one bit. Just like I'm sure that once you finally come to grips that your 'if you don't like it just leave' position is utter fantasy, it won't change your beliefs either. But if your beliefs were conslucions based on facts, then when you learn the facts are wrong, your believes must change too.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Even if I build a rocketship and fly to Mars and live in a cave with an oxygen mask, you guys will STILL send your enforcement agents after me to hunt me down to make sure I am reporting back to you my every daily activity and haul me back to earth if I don't comply.

Fuck no, [i]leave the country already.

Nope, read the laws again. It doesn't matter whether I move to Morocco or Mars. My debt to the US came at birth and lasts for life because, as this thread proves, those on your side of the debate are hell-bent on making sure that nobody can escape your tyrannical laws. You trap everybody like slaves. And here's a news flash... I do NOT live in the US, and haven't for years. After my incident with the IRS I was assessed $500k penalties for living abroad and not reporting all my activity. And lest you think those penalties were tied to income or assets—they weren't. Even if I lived in poverty and only had $10k in assets the penalties would still have been $500k. Believe me, I wouldn't have paid it, and I wouldn't continue to file US tax returns and report everything I do every day to my big brother minder if I didn't have a gun pointed at my head. I married a non-US citizen and am just frantically trying to get a 2nd citizenship so I can renounce my US citizenship and set fire that fucking shackle you guys call a passport while I still can, because the neanderthals knows as Democrats, have been arguing that it's “a loophole” that US citizens can marry foreigners and renounce their US citizenship, and they're pushing to close it with laws like the ex-patriot act which stipulate that even if I do give up my citizenship and am never allowed to return to US soil again, I STILL am forced to report everything I do to my big brother minder at the IRS and let them decide how much they'll let me keep and what they'll take for themselves.


(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: 1395695239462.jpg]

Sure, no problem, I base my beliefs on FACTS. And this fact is SO obvious and well-known you must be trying really hard to not know it: IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Internati...ens-Abroad
“U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad
If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.”

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I do doubt that 99.9% of them have the means to cross the country to do so.

Look, when things are oppressive enough, people find a way. People in N. Korea who don't have a penny to their name will cross the DMZ, swim oceans, cross frozen rivers, to escape. The difference between renting a U-Haul for a 1-way move 300 miles away, instead of a local move 30 miles away, is only a few hundred dollars. Even people living at the poverty line could swing it.


(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Wrong fuktard. It's about collective responsibility.

By that what you mean is that one group which has 51% of the vote and controls congress gets to decide what responsibility the other 49% have. With that thinking, ANYTHING is justified. Even slavery. Since the majority decides the responsibility of the minority, they could argue that in exchange for “liberating” the slaves from Africa and providing them a home in the US, they had a responsibility to pick cotton. That's bull shit.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Does your will supercede the wellbeing of your fellow citizens at all times? If your answer is 'yes, my personal liberty trumps all other considerations', then the rest of society can and will tell you to go fuck yourself. Someone who takes their personal liberty to such an extreme cannot be a constructive member of society if they do not take into account how their actions affect their fellow citizens.

So you're saying that I have to sacrifice my liberty and freedom for the wellbeing of my fellow citizens (ie those who have 51% of the vote get to tell me what sacrifices I must make for their wellbeing). I do not think like that. I don't think you have any 'debt' to me, or that I have any right to deprive you of your liberty and freedom for my wellbeing. That's slave-masters thinking.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because what is best for any one individual may not be anywhere near the best for society, and advocating that everyone else can fuck off because 'personal freedom' is not a persuasive argument.

No, I've conceded society will pass laws, and individuals should execute a social contract, voluntarily subjecting themselves to whatever rules a given society passes. I'm not saying that each individual should be able to 'fuck society'. I'm saying each individual should be free to choose WHICH society they want to subject themselves to. Totally different things.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you abdicate your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you're a narcissistic asshole. Leave the country, go live out on a raft in international waters already; and good fucking riddance.

As I've proven, you say that, but then whenever someone climbs on their raft your agents haul them back at gunpoint as “traitors” for trying to escape. But, no, I don't feel anybody is born with a “responsibility” to anybody else. That's called indentured servitude, or debt bondage.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your view is so one-dimensional and myopic, one has to wonder if you can manage to get out of your house in the morning without smashing face first into a dozen walls.

Here in Switzerland this view is considered 'normal'. And guess what. Over here, despite having no government welfare at either the federal or state level, there's not one homeless person, not one person who is hungry. Despite having no government minimum wage, our janitors at McDonald's make around $40k/year plus health insurance and a month's paid vacation. And we live longer than Americans, have a tiny fraction of the crime rate. We rate our satisfaction with government orders of magnitude higher than you. We earn more money than you, our savings are almost 7x what Americans have. Our taxes are less, yet you won't find a pothole in our roads, the infrastructure is spotless. Heck even going to the DMV is painless. YOU have the miopic view that the American way you're used to is the only one you'll consider and you assume that everybody else is “smashing their face first into a dozen walls”. THAT is myopic and one-dimensional.

(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's not the progressives and the liberals who want to enact a wall across the border with Mexico and man it with sniper-rifle armed border patrol officers; those are conservatives you are thinking about. But hey, nice attempt at misrepresentation.

Really? Even liberal enclaves like San Diego have militarized borders and shoot at people who cross simply to find work to feed their families. Obama is deporting people faster even than Bush. And the last President who granted amnesty for undocumented immigrants was... Ronald Reagan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 10:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, fuck off - I've drawn no line. You keep putting words in people's mouths. You are such a dickhead.

Of course you did! I said that I will accept your laws and protest only if draw the jurisdictional line at the precise location where it covers everybody everywhere they can legally live. You attacked this as non-negotiable. YOU are picking one place to draw your arbitrary lines and telling me that I must respect that line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 09:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that the UE is just another arbitrary border. Being an EU citizen does not grant you the same rights of movement and travel outside of the EU as it does inside; same as being an American citizen within the United States. For fuck's sake... Facepalm

Do you have no self awareness?

The EU is comprised of autonomous states with their own laws. You're free to pick any legal system you want to live under. And if you don't like any of them, you're free to leave the EU entirely--no strings attached. Totally opposite of the US where one set of laws covers everywhere that one can legally live and anybody who tries to flee is hunted and brought back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Everyone else is wrong", the option I presented, and your pretended distinction, "everyone else is wrong, therefore keep away from me", are, as you may notice, the same.

You just proved that strawmen are YOUR game. Did I say 'everyone else is wrong, keep away from me?' NO!!! I said 'do whatever you want, just let me LEAVE'. What I'm calling for is totally different than the strawman you assign to me. If you're standing in a restaurant there is a HUGE difference between demanding that everybody must "keep away from you" vs my position that "I must be allowed to leave".

Since you don't even pretend to deny the "everyone else is wrong" part, looks that that original characterisation stands.

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact that I keep saying "Please, let me just leave" and you keep saying "NO!!!", you see this is a master<->slave relationship.

Careful, I think your fantasies are slipping into your posts again.

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  that "state/local" is a vague, empty, and meaningless qualifier, with boundaries and powers no less arbitrary or variable than any other level of government

No, see my post to Chas. I am _NOT_ suggesting meaningless, arbitrary boundaries. I am saying 'draw the boundaries ANYWHERE YOU WANT', just let people leave. _YOU_ are the one picking a meaningless, arbitrary that covers precisely every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live and telling me I must stay within your boundaries and that they are non-negotiable.

No, I didn't say that anywhere outside your delusions. Literally never. But don't let pesky reality interfere with your self-absorbed bloviating.

By the way, you've now gone from "keep it local" to "let me leave", which are different. Are you aware of this?

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, that's a thing you made up. But you're very attached to it, so it survives any number of collisions with reality.

It's not something I've made up. I've challenged you repeatedly to find ONE exception to that rule. The only time you proposed one was on environmental issues, something I already conceded required broad rules so that one jurisdiction doesn't damage property in another. If, despite all my challenges, you cannot find ONE exception to the rule, then I will continue to say the rule stands.

No, that's definitely just your self-obsessed delusion.

You are fundamentally incapable of understanding other people. I have mentioned this to you before.

Since you, just like everyone else, say that regulation should be as minimal as possible, the difference, then, lies in how possible is interpreted. Superficial boilerplate rhetoric is not the be-all and end-all of government policy, and broad agreement in principle does not preclude a variation in opinion. You can pay lip service to the idea of contrasting views, but you plainly can't quite get your fat head around their actually being just as valid. Hence the endless self-righteous condemnatory rhetoric you spout off.

The number of trivial statements to which agreement in principle is easy and disagreement on specifics inevitable is vast.

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary, but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil....

You are congenitally incapable of understanding others. Option 2 is precisely what you say all the time.

I DARE you to copy/paste one time when I've stated that. I am completely flexible on this and have said over and over pass whatever orders and regulations you think are necessary. I won't push back no matter how absurd and ridiculous i think they are. JUST LET ME LEAVE. That IS not option 2.

Hey - champ. Can you read?

(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Or option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary...

CHECK

(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil.

CHECK.

Shucks. Bingo!

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And that also seems to be the one non-negotiable issue for you--you have made up your mind that when you make your rules you must arbitrarily be able to draw the jurisdictional lines so they cover every square inch that I'm legally allowed to live.

No. I did not say that.

I did not even come close to saying that.

This is a thing you invented.

It's problematic that you can't tell your imagination apart from reality.

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You are so intent on controlling me that the one and only simple I request I make, that you let me leave, is something you won't even consider.

Citation needed. I did not say that.

(15-05-2014 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And every time I say it, you keep making up these ridiculous strawmen because you don't want to admit that it all boils down to this one issue.

Citation needed. I did not say that.

Pleas, try to keep up. Things that happen in your head are not things I've actually done. You made them up. I did not say them. Do you understand the difference?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-05-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 11:49 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 09:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that the UE is just another arbitrary border. Being an EU citizen does not grant you the same rights of movement and travel outside of the EU as it does inside; same as being an American citizen within the United States. For fuck's sake... Facepalm

Do you have no self awareness?

The EU is comprised of autonomous states with their own laws. You're free to pick any legal system you want to live under. And if you don't like any of them, you're free to leave the EU entirely--no strings attached. Totally opposite of the US where one set of laws covers everywhere that one can legally live and anybody who tries to flee is hunted and brought back.

Fuck off to the moon already. The US does not hunt down expatriates. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 01:40 PM by djhall.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
I got lost cutting the quotes out of the original post properly, so I cut and pasted them this way instead.

Quote:frankksj: I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. You're so desparately[sic] clinging to your 'might makes right' mentality that you're trying to find any excuse why peaceful coexistance[sic] cannot work.

EvolutionKills: Wrong fuktard. It's about collective responsibility.

Quote:frankksj: Why is the idea of giving people the freedom to choose SOOO very offensive to you? Do you like having a gun pointed to your head and being forced to do something against your will?

EvolutionKills: Does your will supercede the wellbeing of your fellow citizens at all times? If your answer is 'yes, my personal liberty trumps all other considerations', then the rest of society can and will tell you to go fuck yourself. Someone who takes their personal liberty to such an extreme cannot be a constructive member of society if they do not take into account how their actions affect their fellow citizens.

Quote:frankksj: So, when the only thing that I'm saying is that I will treat you the way you want to be treated, and I want to let you choose for yourself the system that works best for you, why is that so offensive to you?

EvolutionKills: Because what is best for any one individual may not be anywhere near the best for society, and advocating that everyone else can fuck off because 'personal freedom' is not a persuasive argument.

Quote:frankksj: My guess is because I'd expect the same in return and the "club" is SOOOO precious to you, it's SOOOO important to be able to force me to do things against my will, that you'd rather subject yourself to the same oppression than give me freedom.

EvolutionKills: If you abdicate your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you're a narcissistic asshole. Leave the country, go live out on a raft in international waters already; and good fucking riddance.

Unless I am missing the point, isn't your debate essentially a disagreement about the default relationship between an individual and society?

As I see it, frankksj is essentially arguing for the default position that an individual is ideally born nothing more than that, and should, to the extent possible, have only those social obligations that they voluntarily assume through reasoned, positive, intentional, and ideally uncoerced choice. His essential point seems to be that the social contract should be less implied or presumed and more like an actual contract... like a homeowner's association. "Hey, we have this good society over here... if you want to join and get the benefits you need to voluntarily agree to give up X individual liberties for Y social benefits." Certainly there are LOTS of things where that isn't practical, but I think frankksj is holding it as the ideal default standard to strive for without ruining everything good in society along the way.

EvolutionKills seems to be arguing from a default position that we are all born out of necessity into an established society with existing benefits, a social contract, and social responsibilities, and if you decide that you don't want that, well, that is more your problem than society's to deal with. Basically, we don't owe new members of the human race as much of a blank social and political slate as we can give them, and there isn't anything wrong with establishing a pre-existing society with pre-existing obligations that will automatically attach to new individuals simply by happenstance of where they were born. Of course, personal freedom is valued and considered in debating and establishing the scope of those social obligations, but it is one value among many others and not a special value we must give extra deference to for fear of limiting the liberty of future members of the human race.

Am I wildy off here?

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
15-05-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  By the way, you've now gone from "keep it local" to "let me leave", which are different. Are you aware of this?

No, they're not. When you have closed borders at the national level and Americans are only allowed legally to live and work within US national borders, then, the only possible way for an American to leave a jurisdiction is if it it smaller than the national jurisdiction, thus giving the American multiple jurisdictions to choose from. You're a physicist and you can't grasp this? I don't buy it.

(15-05-2014 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Since you, just like everyone else, say that regulation should be as minimal as possible, the difference, then, lies in how possible is interpreted.

NO! I've even said I'm fine with a communist system in the US where everything is owned and regulated by the state. I have no problem with that. The ONLY thing I ask for is that people who don't like it have somewhere else, outside that communist system, they can legally relocate to.

(15-05-2014 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Or option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary...

CHECK

(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil.

CHECK.

Shucks. Bingo!

I challenged you to copy/paste where I have ever said anything like your option 2. Instead of copying my words, you used YOUR OWN words ("check") and attributed them to me. So that's actually check-mate. You keep making up fantasy positions and attributing them to me and attacking your strawman. Attack my ACTUAL position: make whatever fucking laws you want, just let people leave if they find them too oppressive.

(15-05-2014 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No. I did not say that.
I did not even come close to saying that.
This is a thing you invented.

Then WHAT are we arguing about? The ONLY thing I'm advocating for is that whatever laws you pass, people have be able to legally flee and relocate to escape them. That's it. Nothing more. So if you are fine with that position then why keep attacking me, and just say "I agree, if I want a law, I'll limit the jurisdiction so those who don't like it have a legal way to relocate and escape it." That's my position. Do you object to it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 12:23 PM)djhall Wrote:  Am I wildy off here?

You nailed it 100% perfectly, imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 01:09 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 11:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck off to the moon already. The US does not hunt down expatriates. Facepalm

Of course it does, moron. Google "Bobby Fischer" the chess champion. He fled the US, gave up his residency, never to return to US soil again. As an expatriate he married a Japanese woman, and went to Yugoslavia and won money in a chess championship. The US formally indicated him for (a) just going to Yugoslavia in the first place since the US, like Cuba and N. Korea, dictates where its citizens can travel and restricts their freedom of mobility, and (b) for the felony crime of not surrendering his winnings back to the US so the US could take what it wanted. When he refused to comply, the US pressured Japan to arrest him and sought his extradition. This caused international outcry since EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD except the US, N Korea and Cuba, citizens are allowed to leave no strings attached. It's even in the UN charter as a basic human right, and the UN human rights commission has condemned the US for refusing to comply. Iceland's parliament held an emergency session and voted to make him an instant Iceland citizen so they could fight his extradition and have him sent to Iceland instead where he was ultimately given his freedom. The US most definitely does hunt down expatriates, and as one myself, I've had plenty of knocks on my door from US enforcement agents using threats to keep me in line. Get a fucking clue about the system you're defending.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
@EvolutionKills,

And don't forget when Bobby Fischer and others have expatriated, US Congressmen, mainly democrats, have said that is an act of treason, which is a capital offense, the punishment for which is execution.

So, you guys are like Kim Jung Un saying N. Korea is a free country and any citizen who wants to leave is free to do so. Except that leaving is an act of treason and the penalty is public execution. But in your mind, like Kim Jung Un's, that doesn't mean you're not free to leave and it's still a free country.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: