Another job no American would want

123457»

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
    Am I free to move out of the way of your ridiculous euphemism for responsible government?

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Where's your lease? Who's your landlord? What are you renting from him?
    Who built your roads? Who props up the system by which your money is even worth anything?


    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. There is someone sitting in an office in Washington pointing a gun at them. And in the event those regulations are broken despite their coersion, those guns will be used. It remains as the primary foundation of your legal system.
    Kick Ass!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Am I free to move out of the way of your ridiculous euphemism for responsible government?

    You have legs, don't you? So yes. You're free to move any which way.
    Who built your roads?

    Private contractors, for the most part, paid for by the expropriated wealth of private citizens.
    Who props up the system by which your money is even worth anything?

    Individual laborers.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You have legs, don't you? So yes. You're free to move any which way.
    Then, yes, if I don't move out of the way of your ridiculous euphemism for responsible government, then I am consenting to your ridiculous euphemism for responsible government.

    I choose to move out of the way.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Then, yes, if I don't move out of the way of your ridiculous euphemism for responsible government, then I am consenting to your ridiculous euphemism for responsible government.

    Excellent. At least, when prodded, you can be logically consistent.
    I choose to move out of the way.

    Then I'll take that action as consent too, since consent no longer requires the standard of individual agreement. You're dead.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Excellent. At least, when prodded, you can be logically consistent.



    Then I'll take that action as consent too, since consent no longer requires the standard of individual agreement. You're dead.
    So we're talking about a literal gun now? Then how did you determine that you hit me? I'm pretty quick on my feet when I need to be.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    So we're talking about a literal gun now?

    Of course -- just like the millions of literal guns your governments use to back their regulations.
    Then how did you determine that you hit me? I'm pretty quick on my feet when I need to be.

    So are Mexican truck drivers, but that's not really going to stop you from assuming their consent and then shoving your rules and regulations down their throats, as well as the throats of their consumers.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So are Mexican truck drivers, but that's not really going to stop you from assuming their consent and then shoving your rules and regulations down their throats, as well as the throats of their consumers.
    Hey, something's got to get me up in the morning.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    farfromglorified wrote:
    your governments




    i notice this theme throughout your posts. however pleasant a utopian existence of peaceful anarchist rule would be, we currently have a system that utilizes government to provide services and regulations for the masses.

    this current administration has the same philosophy you have, every man for himself. now take a look at New Orleans/Katrina to get a small glimpse of the real life reperucussions of this way of thinking.

Categories