[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
@EvolutionKills,

One more PS....

Imagine you overheard one person tell another "You know your church teaches the earth is only 7,000 years old." And the latter says "That's absurd! Of course my church doesn't teach something so nonsensical. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that." So the former shows the latter that it really IS official church doctrine, and so the latter says "Well, if the church says so, then I guess it must be so", defending the church's position. Without even knowing what the age of the earth is, based only on the circumstances, wouldn't you say that the latter is a lemming, blindly devoted to a religion he doesn't know about?

I have this exact SAME debate hundreds of times with democrats and always say "You know your party teaches that American citizens obligations are for life whether they live in the US or not, and the US is one of only 3 countries, along with N Korea and Cuba, that doesn't allow its citizens to simply move abroad if they find the rules too oppressive." The democrats always say "That's impossible. Surely my country, the land of the free, would never do something so outrageous. If you don't like it in the US, OBVIOUSLY you should just leave." Then I show them links proving what I originally said, and they turn and start defending the laws they just said were unimaginable.

To me that proves why that your faith in the Church of the Democratic Party is blind devotion; a religion, not a scientific position. This exchange with you is something I've had hundreds of times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United States of America is but one of ~200 countries presently on this Earth.

(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

No, that isn't a response.

(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I challenged you to copy/paste where I have ever said anything like your option 2.

frankksj Wrote:"I DARE you to give me one example where we disagree ... that is not ... you being a rapist, club-wielding neanderthal using threats of violence and initiating force against others, while I am asking for you to accept a peaceful alternative."

You could not exemplify it more if you tried.

(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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?

Your first post in this thread was a response to mine.

So, you tell me.

(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

No, that's highly disingenuous.

You have opinions just like anyone. You would prefer to live under certain terms and conditions. That is what I was referring to.

(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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?

Not as such, and I have stated so numerous times.

You, however, completely fail to understand other people, why they hold the views they do, and why they might disagree with you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

But the EPA is a body that regulates environmental protection throughout the entire United States. One has to wonder why your disdain for supposed federal totalitarianism extends to the IRS, but not the EPA, considering that they both operate within the same jurisdiction.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

You lost me at 'hyper-sonic', because even the fastest modern bullet train has a top operating speed of 268mph, far from exceeding the sound barrier.

The problem with a free-market approach is that there always needs to be a profit. Some things we have decided are important enough that they should be pursued and maintained in lieu of making a profit, such as education and infrastructure. Everyone benefited from the Interstate that the Federal Government built in the 1950's, allowing fast and safe travel across states. Our modern economy wouldn't be able to support itself without the Interstate, a highway system that the states alone were not going to coordinate and build by themselves.

Their current dilapidation is not a indictment of their reasons for being built, but rather of the current state of affairs that has our government beholden to corporations and banks who purchase the elections. It has more to do with a bloated defense budget and industry that has gotten fat off of over a decade of warfare, and a federal government that has become unresponsive to the people through Supreme Court decisions.

Where is the private industry racing to fix all of the bridges? They're not, because they haven't figured out a way to scam the taxpayers yet, once they do they'll be all over it (just like private prisons and charter schools).


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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?

You mean the private industry that didn't build the Hoover Damn?

Remember that the private-sector always needs a profit goal. How well has that worked out for our internet infrastructure? The United States has some of the worst internet in the developed world, with speeds far lower and prices far higher than our European counterparts. Many areas suffer from monopolies, and even right now Comcast is looking to buy Time-Warner Cable to makes himself fully responsible for a whole 1/3 of the nation's cable. Once they have that lock on the market, what will be their incentive to improve the infrastructure? Where has it been? When the public is left with only one option or nothing, there is no incentive for them in improve; and very little to stop them from price gouging and other monopolistic actions.

That is the problem with capitalism and free-markets, in that the competition is an Oroboros, a self consuming serpent. The goal of everyone in the competition is to be the last man standing, to destroy all of their competition, so that they can dominate the market. This is why that sometimes the government steps in, because some things have been decided to be too valuable to the public good, to be left to the whims of capitalism (such as, once again, infrastructure, education, law enforcement, defense, etc.).


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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]

Gotta love the tag line of the site you got that graphic from...

"Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias"

Also at the top of the list? Obamacare Gasp, Hillary Clinton Gasp, and the current conservative fucktard buzzword, BENGHAZI! Facepalm

So yeah, I trust that infographic about as much as I'd trust anything else I'd see on Fox News; which is to say, not at fucking all.

Before regulations, laborers were disposable commodities. We had children working in coal mines you fucking moron, this happened here in my own fucking state. This is what happens when you let industry regulate itself. Industry didn't end child labor, government regulation did.

[Image: PA-breaker-boys.jpg]

[Image: child-labor-united-states-lewis-hines-12.jpg]

[Image: 02658r.jpg]

How about the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act? Do you want to know how many dies in coal mine related accidents in 1968? 311 fatal accident. Do you know what that number was by 2012? Just 19.

Want another example of the failures of self regulation? How about that fertilizer explosion in west Texas that killed 14 people and injured another 160+? The plant had 1,350 times the legally allowed amount of highly explosive ammonium nitrate, yet hadn't informed the Department of Homeland Security of the danger. Likewise, the fertilizer plant did not have sprinklers, shut-off valves, fire alarms or legally required blast walls, all of which could have prevented the catastrophic damage done. Self-regulation my ass, there is no profit in self-regulation.

Those who want short term profits can, will, and do cut corners that cost people's lives; all in the name of that all-mighty dollar.






(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Which would be great, had we the knowledge we do now before we settled great metropolitan areas that are in disaster prone regions. So the next time an earthquake strikes San Francisco, instead of rebuilding it, we should just leave it in ruins and have the survivors move someplace else? The whole point of insurance is to mitigate risk by spreading it out. Those people who own vacation homes on the Florida coast need extra insurance, that they pay a premium for, that those who are not in Hurricane prone areas don't pay. Plus there are plenty of capitalist reasons to rebuild, like the area's flourishing tourism industry that always bounces back. We all help subsidize FEMA, because it can and will help any and all of us if and when we ever need it. We all put money into it as an insurance policy, even if some people need it's help more often than others; we're all happy to pay for it secure in the comfort of know it will be there for us too. This is the collective responsibility I mentioned earlier.

But no, you go ahead and convince those people in Miami or New Orleans that they should just move elsewhere. Because that's your solution to everything it seems: Just Move.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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[sic] 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.

Truth is not determined by the majority fucknuts, and facts are not open to debate. But no, let them teach their children lies and perpetuate a culture of ignorance, because history has shown us how well that worked in the past. Not that you'd know, because you seem so prone to repeat it. Facepalm

You'd rather have them free and barbarically ignorant, rather than educated and mildly inconvenienced. Fuck you.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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?

How about shutting down the government? Or wasting time and money voting to repeal the ACA over 50 times in the House? How about the most ineffectual congress in history? How about the record-breaking number of Republican filibusters (and threat of filibusters) that have ground the operation of the government to a standstill. The failure to pass any gun-control policy post Sandy Hook with over 90% of the American people agreeing that something needed to be done. A Democratic president that is a conservative in everything except a handful of social policies. A Democratic president that has performed more drone strikes and deported more immigrants than his predecessor. A Democratic president who has failed to close Guantanamo Bay. A Democratic president that has personally authorized the killing of American citizens on foreign soil with drone strikes. A Democratic president that bargains with Republicans about the assignment of district court judges, a power he has and need not negotiate with Republicans at all; and Bush certainly didn't negotiate with the Democrats when he was president, he simply appointed people as was his right.

Yeah, go fuck yourself. You need a better talking point than Obamacare. Didn't you get the memo? The new catchphrase is BENGHAZI! Dodgy


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Glenn Beck's Freedom Town. Drinking Beverage

How about the state of affairs in Somalia? It's an effectively lawless country, a paradise free from the tyranny of government intervention and taxation. There is no public education system that forces you to learn anything. There is no government programs that allow the great unwashed masses to mooch and suckle from the teat of socialism. Of course there is nothing stopping the groups of armed Islamic fundamentalist militants from raping, killing, and enslaving people with impunity; but I'll be damned if they don't have to worry about the jackboots of government repression on their necks to stop them from imposing their freedom on their fellow citizens. Their neighbors even have the freedom of leaving, and with no Somali government to track them down in Switzerland!

Maybe you should move to Somalia? Consider


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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[sic] based on facts, then when you learn the facts are wrong, your believes must change too.

Then give me the links to the 'facts' and not more personal anecdote bullshit. Drinking Beverage


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 08:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

In lieu of how multinational corporations and banks smuggle and hide billions and billions of dollars abroad, I am highly skeptical of this (considering nearly everything else you post that can be checked is total bullshit). If it is true, then it is an unfortunately broken system that needs to be repaired; not burned to the ground with everyone inside.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.”

Okay, hypothetical time. The point here is that if you move abroad, yet retain your US Citizenship (as opposed to gaining citizenship in another country or seeking political asylum), it is presumably for some reason. As a US citizen, you are expected to contribute to help maintain the country of your citizenship. If you want to cut all ties, including financial responsibility to your fellow citizens, then you need to renounce your citizenship. Sure, this should be a relatively easy process; I agree with you there. But I don't see the problem with US citizens (even abroad) paying their share regardless.

I also imagine that this was possibly implemented to prevent wealthy Americans from hiding their wealth or income abroad (not that there aren't other ways to do this, but you're just not enough of an oligarch for the rules to bend in your favor). Your tax dollars still pay for the government that operates outside of it's borders. It can be argued that a US citizen that lives in Canada still benefits from being able to cross back into the country whenever they so desire, and that his own country (and by proxy himself) benefits from the United States' foreign policy (like the use of it's military to help train and protect it's allies). Also a US citizen abroad can seek asylum and refuge in any American embassy, as they are considered sovereign territory of the United States; and your taxes help to pay and maintain these facilities that you can benefit from.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Have you ever lived a paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth existence? Because someone who scoffs at a few hundred dollars doesn't sound like he knows what it's like to have been poor.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

It was also the majority that freed the slaves, and there would have never been slavery had the actual majority (ie. the slaves themselves) had any political power. It was also the majority that gave the vote to women and to African Americans. This is why we have a Constitution with Amendments that are enacted to protects the rights of citizens, and especially those in the minority, from the majority if need be. Now amending the Constitution requires far more than 51% (here's your F in Civics), so we won't be seeing the return of slavery any time soon.

Need I remind you why slavery was so pernicious and defended so vehemently in the South? Because is was the fundamental basis for their economy, the market supported the perpetuation of slavery. The Slave Owners were all just operating in their own best interest in keep slaves and maintaining their slave-owning culture, as it was the basis for all their wealth and power.

Where was the market drive to liberate the slaves? Oh right, there wasn't one. They were actually liberated by the force of the federal government. Dodgy


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

No, it's community thinking. So you don't want to pay taxes because you don't have a 'debt' as a citizen. Those public roads you use? The public parks you can use? The public education and libraries you have access to? The public law enforcement and firefighters that safeguard you? Yeah, you don't have a debt alright; you'd rather just freeload I take it? Hike through the woods to work instead? Have to put out your own house fire? Alright, so what will happen if your house catches fire? Are you going to pay a private firefighting company? Will there be enough of a competition in your area to give you a fair price for their services? What if you don't, or can't, pay for their services; and your fire spreads to your neighbor's house? What then, who pays for that?

But no, we have collectively decided that fighting fires is in the best interest of all citizens, and it should not be beholden to the market to do so. So we publically fund firefighters, and enact housing and construction guidelines and regulations, and conduct safety testing for home appliances; all in an effort to prevent fires for the public good. Everyone can call the fire department when in need, and they will come to help you, because they are publically funded to help the public. Even if you don't like the idea of the firefighters, even if you cheat on your taxes, even if you are destitute and homeless; they have an obligation to help you, because that's what they are paid to do. The same applies to law enforcement and paramedics. Do you really want the law enforcement or paramedics operated expressly for profit? So that your freedoms are not infringed by paying taxes for services you don't choose to support? Go watch Robocop...


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Agreed.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

If you benefit from a society, then you do owe a debt to it.


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Except that Switzerland is one of the smallest countries in the world. Not everything upscales so nicely, as the country only contains roughly 8 million people; for reference that's less than a third of the 26.45 million in Texas alone. Is it any surprise that your republic is more responsive to the people than many, if not most, of the state governments are here? Also unless I am mistaken, your government is also a representative democracy much like the United States; complete with a three part federal government. Except that your citizens can themselves directly submit referendums, making it in some ways a direct democracy. For one who is terribly fearful of the tyranny of the 51%, you sure didn't pick a country that would dissuade that.

Also, did you forget the mention the compulsory service in the Swiss Armed Forces for all male citizens? "Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable" That doesn't sound very Libertarian now, does it? I imagine they do that because the people, through their government, decided it was in the public's best interest to conscript all males to train and serve for a number of years. Israel does this too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

It's great that everything works as well as it does in Switzerland (and example of what can be done through smart regulation and government intervention), but if you think that it stems from your vaunted Libertarian ideals, you would appear to be sadly mistaken.

Also, did you know that Switzerland also has a similar policy about taxing it's citizens abroad? "All people resident in Switzerland are liable for the taxation of their worldwide income and assets, except on the income and wealth from foreign business or real estate, or where tax treaties limit double taxation." Well fuck, a policy nearly identical to the one you decried in the United States. Except that people don't go to the United States for it's reputation as a tax haven, unlike your own Switzerland. Now the intervention of those American agents now maybe makes a bit more sense, as you're probably not the only American expatriate in Switzerland; and enough of them probably are tax dodgers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in...al_persons


(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Obama is not a liberal or a progressive, and I am as unhappy with him as the neo-conservative right is; but for entirely different reasons. Facepalm

I can't speak for politics in San diego, as I wasn't aware of it's status as a 'liberal haven' nor of it's supposed problems with 'militarized borders'. Immigration reform is however being stymied by the Republicans and the Tea-Party, who's definition of 'reform' is the building of sniper towers, barbed wire electric fences, and moats of burning pitch. So once again, nice attempt at misrepresentation.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-05-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United States of America is but one of ~200 countries presently on this Earth.

Correct. But what difference does it make whether it's 200 or 2,000 when the US says that no matter where a US citizen lives his obligations to the US are the same?

(15-05-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 01:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

No, that's highly disingenuous.

You have opinions just like anyone. You would prefer to live under certain terms and conditions. That is what I was referring to.

Not disingenuous at all. Sure, I have opinions, but I don't force them on others. I think communism is a terrible system. But, as I said, I have no problem if a US state has a communist system--so long as people are allowed to leave. If I happened to be born there, then when I turned 18 I would just pack up and move out, walk, crawl or hitchhike if necessary and go somewhere else.

(15-05-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You, however, completely fail to understand other people, why they hold the views they do, and why they might disagree with you.

I think I understand your views better than you do and why you hold them. djhall summed it up very well. The right believes that all humans, at birth, are born with a debt, or obligation, to god, so that you don't own yourself, god owns you and decides what you can do with yourself. The left believes that all humans, at birth, are born with a debt, or obligation, to a group of humans collectively referred to as "society", and that society owns you and decides what you can do with yourself. Libertarians believe all humans are born debt-free, with no obligations, and that they own themselves.

That _IS_ the core belief system that drives everything else. And that IS what's behind all the lefts' policies. Look at all the countries that go far-left, like socialism/communism. They all end up closing the borders and denying their citizens the right to leave, claiming that they were born bound to a "social contract" with a debt to society. That core belief is the justification for denying people the right to leave. It's why, when the left got power in the US, the first thing they did was pass laws preventing people from leaving. The expatriation laws I refer to were passed under Clinton, by a democratic congress, incorporated in HIPAA.

(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.... If you abdicate your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you're a narcissistic asshole.

That personifies the position of the left. Note that the individual is born with a debt to society, and society can force the individual to do what is in society's best interests, and the individual does not have the right to leave this arrangement. But what is society? It's just a label for group of individuals. So, take that statement and just substitute "society" for a different label for a group of individuals, like "the Johnson's", a family of 18th century white plantation owners in Mississippi. Now his position is that the individual is born with a debt to the Johnson's, and the Johnson's can force the individual to do what is in the Johnson's best interests, and the individual does not have the right to leave this arrangement. This leftist thinking IS the justification for slavery, and always has been. Remember, in the 19th century during the civil war the confederate states were nearly always democrats, since this left view is the foundation that justifies slavery. And the same is true today. Democrats STILL favor slavery, since, whenever they argue individuals are born with a debt to another group of individuals, that _IS_ the very meaning of slavery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 04:06 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 01:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @EvolutionKills,

One more PS....

Imagine you overheard one person tell another "You know your church teaches the earth is only 7,000 years old." And the latter says "That's absurd! Of course my church doesn't teach something so nonsensical. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that." So the former shows the latter that it really IS official church doctrine, and so the latter says "Well, if the church says so, then I guess it must be so", defending the church's position. Without even knowing what the age of the earth is, based only on the circumstances, wouldn't you say that the latter is a lemming, blindly devoted to a religion he doesn't know about?

I have this exact SAME debate hundreds of times with democrats and always say "You know your party teaches that American citizens obligations are for life whether they live in the US or not, and the US is one of only 3 countries, along with N Korea and Cuba, that doesn't allow its citizens to simply move abroad if they find the rules too oppressive." The democrats always say "That's impossible. Surely my country, the land of the free, would never do something so outrageous. If you don't like it in the US, OBVIOUSLY you should just leave." Then I show them links proving what I originally said, and they turn and start defending the laws they just said were unimaginable.

To me that proves why that your faith in the Church of the Democratic Party is blind devotion; a religion, not a scientific position. This exchange with you is something I've had hundreds of times.

Take your innuendo and cram it up your ass. If what you claim is true (insofar as the expatriate thing is concerned), then that is fucked up; and I'll not defend it. I'm a progressive and a independent, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent me. When I suggest you leave, I fully support that it should be with no strings attached. No citizenship, no taxation, no mutual obligation.

[Image: go_fuck_yourself.gif]

Now kiss my ass you presumptuous fucktard.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-05-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  One has to wonder why your disdain for supposed federal totalitarianism extends to the IRS, but not the EPA, considering that they both operate within the same jurisdiction.

Because if one state pollutes another state, it is damaging the property of another. If one state has lower taxes than another, that's the state's prerogative.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You lost me at 'hyper-sonic', because even the fastest modern bullet train has a top operating speed of 268mph, far from exceeding the sound barrier.

Think about it... There is no sound barrier in a vacuum, otherwise we'd be in a constant sonic boom as the earth spun in space.

Wikipedia vactrain: "The modern concept of a vactrain, with evacuated tubes and maglev technology, was explored in the 1910s by American engineer Robert Goddard, who designed detailed prototypes with a university student. His train would have traveled from Boston to New York in 12 minutes, averaging 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h). The train designs were found only after Goddard's death in 1945 and his wife filed for the patents." Read more about Goddard. His peers were also racing to perfect the technology, but it was all abandoned when the US confiscated the public transport system in 1935. There was no reason to continue working on it since, if they failed, they'd lose everything. If they succeeded, the government would confiscate it.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The problem with a free-market approach is that there always needs to be a profit.

Not true. In the past the US had tons of non-profit charities. All those St. [whatever] hospitals started as charity, providing free care to the poor.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some things we have decided are important enough that they should be pursued and maintained in lieu of making a profit, such as education and infrastructure.

Fine, then get it all from non-profits. The key is allow to people to choose.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Everyone benefited from the Interstate that the Federal Government built in the 1950's, allowing fast and safe travel across states. Our modern economy wouldn't be able to support itself without the Interstate, a highway system that the states alone were not going to coordinate and build by themselves.

WTF?? Did you read anything I wrote? Before the government took over we had a zero-emission, all electric high speed transportation network. The government confiscated it and forced us to drive gas burning cars because the oil industry bought off politicians. Back then, when trains were super fast, safe and convenient, and cars were insufferable, unreliable death traps, the auto industry stood no change of competing. That's why 90% of all trips in the US were done on all-electric mass transit. The auto/oil industry needed the use of government force to coerce us all into using their shitty product. Now millions of people die, it creates horrible pollution, we spend years of our life stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic breathing in exhaust fumes and fighting road rage on roads and bridges that are falling apart. Yet you look at them and say 'look what the government gave us', and I say 'no, look what the government took away. Considering how technology advanced the past 100 years, if government hadn't taken over, we'd be safely zipping around the world now at hypersonic speeds without pollution.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where is the private industry racing to fix all of the bridges? They're not, because they haven't figured out a way to scam the taxpayers yet, once they do they'll be all over it (just like private prisons and charter schools).

Back when the bridges were privately owned industry WAS racing to fix them, since their livelihood and return on investment depended on delivering a high quality product. Sure, now that nobody owns the bridges, nobody has any incentive to take care of them. It's the Tragedy of the commons.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Remember that the private-sector always needs a profit goal. How well has that worked out for our internet infrastructure? The United States has some of the worst internet in the developed world...

Yeah, and why is that? Because in the US the internet companies have convinced regulators to divy up territory so each company has a monopoly. For example, the California Public Utility Commission draws lines where service can be provided ONLY by Verizon, and others where ONLY AT&T can provide service. The Utilities are behind this regulation since it allows them to charge higher prices for a poorer product. And your solution is MORE of the same regulation?!

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once they have that lock on the market, what will be their incentive to improve the infrastructure?

Because, assuming the government doesn't regulate the market, somebody else will be biting at their heals to offer a better product at a better price.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That is the problem with capitalism and free-markets...

Name ONE place on Earth anytime in the past 200 years where people had a good standard of living that was NOT capitalist and free-market? How'd that work out in the Soviet Union? What about the old communist China before they switched to a free market system?

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Before regulations, laborers were disposable commodities. We had children working in coal mines you fucking moron, this happened here in my own fucking state. This is what happens when you let industry regulate itself. Industry didn't end child labor, government regulation did.

That's absurd. It had been tried your way, where some individuals force others to do things against their will, for thousands of years. There was no progress stamping out slavery or child labor--it was rampant. Then during the age of enlightment libertarians, like Thomas Jefferson, got to take over for a spell in much of North America and Western Europe, which passed constitutions, libertarian manifestos, enshrining the value of liberty. Instantly, in all those countries, there was an explosion of innovation. We got germ theory, evolution, an industrial revolution. After thousands of years of slavery and child labor, it was eradicated within a century in those countries which embraced the libertarian (ie classic liberal) values. It was libertarian values that state that all men are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and property, life led to seeing life as precious. By the end of the industrial revolution, long before government took over, working standards were improving by leaps and bounds, child labor and slavery was eliminated. Then around the 1930's government took over and took credit for it. But if government did it, then why, prior to the age of enlightenment, when you had democratic governments for thousands of years, was there no progress? Why after trying it your way for 10,000 years or so were 99.9% of all men slaving away in abject poverty and on average dead by the age of 40, while the 0.1% that controlled the government held all the wealth? Why are you guys so anxious to go back to that system?

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act? Do you want to know how many dies in coal mine related accidents in 1968? 311 fatal accident. Do you know what that number was by 2012? Just 19.

Same as always. The free market accomplishes great things and at the last minute government jumps in front and takes credit:

[Image: M822A1F5.GIF]

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which would be great, had we the knowledge we do now before we settled great metropolitan areas that are in disaster prone regions. So the next time an earthquake strikes San Francisco, instead of rebuilding it, we should just leave it in ruins and have the survivors move someplace else?

Duh, of course. If the survivors are going to have rebuild from scratch again anyway, why not build somewhere else, in a non-disaster-prone area so the city won't be wiped out again?! IMO, it's just lunacy that when a natural disaster wipes out an area, causing huge destruction and death, your solution is to rebuild again right in that same spot and wait for it to happen again.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about the state of affairs in Somalia?

Yes, let's discuss Somalia. The libertarian ideal is that all individuals are free to make choices without coercion or threats of violence. You are arguing the opposite, that enforcers with guns (ie police) should coerce people into doing things against their will for fear of violence (like getting shot, tased, imprisoned).

Which system do they have in Somalia? My system that eliminates violence and preserves liberty? Or your system where whoever has the power (be it elected politicians or warlords) uses force against the people? Somalia is the opposite of a libertarian system, but a perfect example of what happens when you take your system of 'might makes right' to its logical conclusion.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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...

I am highly skeptical of this (considering nearly everything else you post that can be checked is total bullshit).

I gave you the link to the IRS's own website which confirms this. This point, like all of my points, are uncontroversial. They are just inconvenient for your ideology so you choose not to accept them.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, hypothetical time. The point here is that if you move abroad, yet retain your US Citizenship (as opposed to gaining citizenship in another country or seeking political asylum), it is presumably for some reason. As a US citizen, you are expected to contribute to help maintain the country of your citizenship.

See my last post. Just like all other devout followers of the democratic religion. Over and over you insisted that I was full of bull-shit, that US laws couldn't possibly be that fucked up, and that if I didn't like it, surely I could just leave. Once I point out that this IS the doctrine of the church of the democratic party you go defending it!!! Obviously I know you very well because this is precisely what I predicted in my last post.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you want to cut all ties, including financial responsibility to your fellow citizens, then you need to renounce your citizenship.

How? You can't renounce your citizenship until you have other citizenship, or else you're a stateless refugee. Other countries used to offer quick and easy citizenship to US citizens, but the US threatened them and shut that down! And now democrats are arguing that even if you marry and get other citizenship it's a "loophole" they need to close to prevent one's escape!

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But I don't see the problem with US citizens (even abroad) paying their share regardless.

Because, in my mind the government exists to serve the people. It is a service organization. Like any other, if you don't use the services, you shouldn't have to pay for them. You see it the opposite, that the government owns the people, like a master owns a slave, and is thus entitled to take whatever "fair share" it wants of the fruit of your labor, whether or not the government actually provides any services or not. That _IS_ the definition of slavery.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Have you ever lived a paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth existence? Because someone who scoffs at a few hundred dollars doesn't sound like he knows what it's like to have been poor.

I grew up in a trailer in a rural redneck area and worked for minimum wage after school. The day after I graduated I packed everything I owned in my Ford Pinto and, yes, drove out of my home state never to return, with no help from anybody or any money in my pocket. If I can do, it anybody can. Even at minimum wage, a few hundred dollars to buy gas to drive cross-country is only a week's worth of work.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It was also the majority that freed the slaves, and there would have never been slavery had the actual majority (ie. the slaves themselves) had any political power.

Yeah, and it was the majority that enslaved them in the first place, so if government defended minorities from the majority, instead of subjecting them to it, there wouldn't ever be slavery!

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Need I remind you why slavery was so pernicious and defended so vehemently in the South? Because is was the fundamental basis for their economy, the market supported the perpetuation of slavery. The Slave Owners were all just operating in their own best interest in keep slaves and maintaining their slave-owning culture, as it was the basis for all their wealth and power.

And what was the slave owner's justification for slavery? Oh yeah, the exact same argument you're making that the individual does not own himself and a right to determine his own fate, but rather his liberty is secondary to the needs of "society" and the greater good.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where was the market drive to liberate the slaves? Oh right, there wasn't one. They were actually liberated by the force of the federal government. Dodgy

Most of the world, and even some states in the US, ended slavery the libertarian way--through non-violent negotiations. They bought the slaves' freedom. But the cost to buy the slaves in the south was around $5b, so Lincoln decided instead to start a war that cost MORE than that, cost a million lives, destroyed the south's infrastructure and economy, leaving them a destitute pile of rubble so that, as always happens in that condition, they become religious fanatics filled with hate so that 100 years later blacks still couldn't even drink from the same fountain as whites, and whites could lynch them with no repercussions. Name one place in the US or the world that ended slavery the libertarian way that had segregation. Government force didn't free the slaves, rather it created a backwards, hate filled, impoverished part of the country.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it's community thinking. So you don't want to pay taxes because you don't have a 'debt' as a citizen. Those public roads you use? The public parks you can use? The public education and libraries you have access to? The public law enforcement and firefighters that safeguard you?

Huh? My only point is that we should be able to leave. If I leave and expatriate, I'm not using any of that stuff. So why do I have to pay for it? To me it's YOU guys who are freeloading since I'm using all the infrastructure in Switzelrand, and paying for it, and still forced to subsidize YOUR infrastructure that I'll never use.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you benefit from a society, then you do owe a debt to it.

Only the debt you agree to. If you benefit from a taxi driver, what is your debt to him? Only the fare you agree to. The taxi driver can't come back to you 10 years later and say 'you benefited from me, so I am entitled to all the fruits of your labor.' Absurd.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that Switzerland is one of the smallest countries in the world. Not everything upscales so nicely

A system of autonomous, local rule scales infinitely.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, did you forget the mention the compulsory service in the Swiss Armed Forces for all male citizens?

I agree that a role of the federal government is to provide a mutual defense. The Swiss have done an amazing job, living in a tiny land-locked enclave surrounded by historically aggressive neighbors, and they've managed to fend them off for 600 years.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, did you know that Switzerland also has a similar policy about taxing it's citizens abroad? "All people resident in Switzerland are liable for the taxation of their worldwide income and assets

Are you even capable of reading what you post. See the key word I highlighted? Switzerland, like the rest of the developed world, says if you want to live here (ie a resident) this is what it costs you. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. That is EXACTLY the system I'm advocating, and the opposite of the US system which is that "if you're born here (ie a citizen, something you had no control over), you must pay for life whether you ever live here or not." It's stupid to waste my time like this when what you're posting only supports my position and you're obviously not even reading it...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 04:35 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Please point out where I said that. Or just shut the fuck up. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-05-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you want to cut all ties, including financial responsibility to your fellow citizens, then you need to renounce your citizenship.

How? You can't renounce your citizenship until you have other citizenship, or else you're a stateless refugee. Other countries used to offer quick and easy citizenship to US citizens, but the US threatened them and shut that down! And now democrats are arguing that even if you marry and get other citizenship it's a "loophole" they need to close to prevent one's escape!

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it's community thinking. So you don't want to pay taxes because you don't have a 'debt' as a citizen. Those public roads you use? The public parks you can use? The public education and libraries you have access to? The public law enforcement and firefighters that safeguard you?

Huh? My only point is that we should be able to leave. If I leave and expatriate, I'm not using any of that stuff. So why do I have to pay for it? To me it's YOU guys who are freeloading since I'm using all the infrastructure in Switzelrand, and paying for it, and still forced to subsidize YOUR infrastructure that I'll never use.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that Switzerland is one of the smallest countries in the world. Not everything upscales so nicely

A system of autonomous, local rule scales infinitely.

(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, did you know that Switzerland also has a similar policy about taxing it's citizens abroad? "All people resident in Switzerland are liable for the taxation of their worldwide income and assets

Are you even capable of reading what you post. See the key word I highlighted? Switzerland, like the rest of the developed world, says if you want to live here (ie a resident) this is what it costs you. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. That is EXACTLY the system I'm advocating, and the opposite of the US system which is that "if you're born here (ie a citizen, something you had no control over), you must pay for life whether you ever live here or not." It's stupid to waste my time like this when what you're posting only supports my position and you're obviously not even reading it...

As a side practical matter, for this to actually work in reality, wouldn't we need to essentially have worldwide open borders and unrestricted immigration / migration policies? It doesn't really matter if you are "free to leave" but have nowhere to go, and there would be some issues if there was massive migration to places like Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico...

However, I think the real opposition to that kind of freedom is the effect it has on grand social programs. Sure, you can have voluntary fire department services, and if you want insurance the insurance company will require you to be a paying subscriber, and if you have neither insurance or a fire service subscription then the fire department just prevents the fire from spreading to their subscribers property and lets yours burn. If you want courts to act on your behalf if you are victimized, then you need to voluntarily pay the court services subscription. However , you can't provide housing for the homeless if all the homeless of the world can come to you. You can't provide expensive public education if all the people with kids move in and all the people without kids move out. You can't provide universal health care if people with expensive health problems can freely move in and all the healthy people and those who already got their expensive care can move away and stop supporting it. If you can't force people to stay and subsidize your grand social plans, then you can't have grand social plans, and a lot of people are very opposed to the idea of not having them.

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, 04:55 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Think about it... There is no sound barrier in a vacuum, otherwise we'd be in a constant sonic boom as the earth spun in space.

Wikipedia vactrain: "The modern concept of a vactrain, with evacuated tubes and maglev technology, was explored in the 1910s by American engineer Robert Goddard, who designed detailed prototypes with a university student. His train would have traveled from Boston to New York in 12 minutes, averaging 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h). The train designs were found only after Goddard's death in 1945 and his wife filed for the patents." Read more about Goddard. His peers were also racing to perfect the technology, but it was all abandoned when the US confiscated the public transport system in 1935. There was no reason to continue working on it since, if they failed, they'd lose everything. If they succeeded, the government would confiscate it.

Do you have a citation for 'his peers were also..."?

And since the plans were not known, no one actively blocked those plans.

And the U.S. government did not confiscate public transport systems.
And there was no "the public transport system". There were lots of systems, from one-track, podunk systems to large metropolitan ones. And many of these were running into the 50's, 60's, and later.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 03:07 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: go_fuck_yourself.gif]

Now kiss my ass you presumptuous fucktard.

One question, btw... Why is it SOO offensive to you when the ONLY thing I'm arguing for is that YOU should be able to choose what society you want to live in, without being forced to live where you're being forced to do something against your will with no means of escape? Isn't that the way you want to be treated? In which case I'm practicing the platinum and golden rules. If you insist that laws should be passed at the national level, forcing people to do things against their will with no easy means of escape since your laws cover every place they can legally live, is that how you want to be treated? Do you want someone to point a gun to your head and force you to do something against your will with no means of escape? So then aren't you violating the platinum and gold rules by doing it to others?

How can you accuse me of being "selfish" when I'm treating you the way you want to be treated, and defending your right to do things which I disapprove of and are not in my best interest? This is what I don't get about the left today. Whenever the right tries to pass national laws forcing them to do things against their will, they are outraged--and then turn around and do precisely the same thing.

Like Milton Friedman once said, liberal used to mean one who believes in liberty, or freedom of choice. Now liberal just mean someone who likes to spend other people's money.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: