I wouldn't replace it. I'd simply ensure that it is preceded by rights to life, liberty and property. I guess that makes me old-fashioned.
you've got life and liberty. but the property is neither in the declaration nor the constitution. so sadly, you've picked the wrong country to live in, based on your ideals.
It is. Do you think lynch mobs weren't murderers, just because a majority decided someone should die?
I'm telling you right now: every penny you get from me, you get because you threaten me with violence. What my "countrymen" think or do not think is irrelevant.
That penny is regulated. Just because you earned it, and you think it's yours, the fact is, is that it's true worth is dictated by those who control the money. That would be the bankers and the lawmakers and whomever they're in cahoots with.
Those are usually customers 9 and 10 in the Bar. They can get away with so much for a time, but when customers 1-7 start getting the idea that something isn't quite right, some sort of compromise must come to the fore.
And that's why I'd never suggest that you have no right to pay your taxes.
That I understand. So are the people willing to pay the taxes the only ones allowed to benefit from government services (uhc, police force, public school...)?
edit : in a system where only people willing to pay actually pay. Whereas, if you don't pay the taxes you actually pay a dr when you need one, school when you need one, police when you need one?
That penny is regulated. Just because you earned it, and you think it's yours, the fact is, is that it's true worth is dictated by those who control the money. That would be the bankers and the lawmakers and whomever they're in cahoots with.
Those are usually customers 9 and 10 in the Bar. They can get away with so much for a time, but when customers 1-7 start getting the idea that something isn't quite right, some sort of compromise must come to the fore.
Then don't use their money.
And please don't use the word "compromise" when you mean violence. Violence precludes compromise.
There is no such thing in the US. Unless you always do what the majority wants in your family. That doesn't happen in mine. Doesn't happen where I work or have worked. Doesn't happen when you vote for a President or any other national issue.
That I understand. So are the people willing to pay the taxes the only ones allowed to benefit from government services (uhc, police force, public school...)?
edit : in a system where only people willing to pay actually pay. Whereas, if you don't pay the taxes you actually pay a dr when you need one, school when you need one, police when you need one?
So you want a government, but you don't want it to be able to do anything - except maybe something to draw portraits from for our paper currency.
No. I could want a government that protects its citizens from violence. The second to last thing I want is a government that issues currency. The last thing I want is a government responsible for violence.
Violence (though more likely some sort of legal fine, or imprisonment depending on the crime).
If those were the agreed upon consequences, then you're not talking about violence. Violence ignore's one's will. If it is consistent with one's will, then it isn't violence.
If those were the agreed upon consequences, then you're not talking about violence. Violence ignore's one's will. If it is consistent with one's will, then it isn't violence.
Then your consent to live here precludes you from arguing that taxation is violence - at least not literally.
And what magic do you have there that equates consent and fiat?
becos the us owns this land as they are the ones with the means to protect it. would you rather the us take a small cut of your income, or russia invade and take all your property, freedom, and potentially your life?
you don't have that choice. you can't wish the world your way. fact is, people are greedy and selfish and the powerful will always exploit the weaker. there will always be war and violence and oppression. so who do you want to be oppressed by? the us or communist russia? or islamic fundamentalists? do you want tyranny of the majority, or majority representation with checks to protect the minority? no system is or ever will be perfect. i've yet to see you offer a better one.
a big ass fucking military and a shit ton of money and natural resources to drive a production society that could, for the most part, sustain itself.
So "a big ass fucking military and a shit ton of money and natural resources" are the means to "ownership"?
you don't have that choice. you can't wish the world your way. fact is, people are greedy and selfish and the powerful will always exploit the weaker. there will always be war and violence and oppression. so who do you want to be oppressed by? the us or communist russia? or islamic fundamentalists? do you want tyranny of the majority, or majority representation with checks to protect the minority? no system is or ever will be perfect. i've yet to see you offer a better one.
Hehe...didn't you accuse me one time of loving your violent idea of anarchy? And here you are paying homage to it.
I'm not here to offer you a system. I have no system to give you.
So "a big ass fucking military and a shit ton of money and natural resources" are the means to "ownership"?
yes, your right to ownership only goes so far as your ability to protect and assert your control over the it in question. there is no moral right to ownership... neither is that old-fashioned. the concept of personal exclusionary property is very new, historically speaking.
Hehe...didn't you accuse me one time of loving your violent idea of anarchy? And here you are paying homage to it.
I'm not here to offer you a system. I have no system to give you.
i know you're not, you're just here to whine and complain about how unfair the current one that gave you unimaginable wealth (comparatively) and a computer to diddle around on here with me all day is.
how am i paying homage to anarchy? im saying government is a necessity to prevent violent anarchy. violence is inevitable. so do you let that violence have its way in society, or do you put checks on it to hold it accountable?
yes, your right to ownership only goes so far as your ability to protect and assert your control over the it in question. there is no moral right to ownership... neither is that old-fashioned. the concept of personal exclusionary property is very new, historically speaking.
If there is no "moral right to ownership", and your right to own something only exists relative to your ability to commit acts of violence, are murder and rape moral activities?
i know you're not, you're just here to whine and complain about how unfair the current one that gave you unimaginable wealth (comparatively) and a computer to diddle around on here with me all day is.
Your "system" gave me no wealth, nor did it give me a computer. Corporations and individuals gave me those things, in exchange for what I gave them.
how am i paying homage to anarchy? im saying government is a necessity to prevent violent anarchy. violence is inevitable. so do you let that violence have its way in society, or do you put checks on it to hold it accountable?
All you've done, by your logic, is tranfer the violence from the inter-individual to the inter-national. And despite all the dead individuals in your wake, you pretend it's different. And you justify it as "safe" or "right" or "moral" or "practical" or "compromise" or "cooperative" or whatever.
If there is no "moral right to ownership", and your right to own something only exists relative to your ability to commit acts of violence, are murder and rape moral activities?
murder and rape have nothing to do with ownership. they have to do with bodily integrity. nobody can take your body from you without killing you. someone can take your house and it won't kill you, not directly. it's tough shit, but that's the way the world works.
Your "system" gave me no wealth, nor did it give me a computer. Corporations and individuals gave me those things, in exchange for what I gave them.
those corporations and individuals would never have been able to do these things without the protections of the system in which they operate. the innovation was dependent upon cooperation which would not have happened if there were not guarantees that the cooperation would be rewarded, profitable, and protected.
All you've done, by your logic, is tranfer the violence from the inter-individual to the inter-national. And despite all the dead individuals in your wake, you pretend it's different. And you justify it as "safe" or "right" or "moral" or "practical" or "compromise" or "cooperative" or whatever.
i don't justify it or pretend it is different. it's just more workable for me, cos i happen to live in one of the richer countries. if i lived in africa, imaybe id not be too happy with this set up. but then, if i lived in africa i'd be living in your kind of society... no rules, no regulations, no centralized government capable of establishing order through force. yet you do not move there... i wonder why?
murder and rape have nothing to do with ownership. they have to do with bodily integrity. nobody can take your body from you without killing you. someone can take your house and it won't kill you, not directly. it's tough shit, but that's the way the world works.
Murder and rape have everything to do with ownership. The require, as concepts, that you own your life and your body. And since you've philosophically equated ownership and possession, I see absolutely no reason why murder and rape are immune from that standard.
those corporations and individuals would never have been able to do these things without the protections of the system in which they operate.
Sure. But your system has no natural monopoly on "protection". It has established a near-monopoly on that by doing the opposite of "protection".
the innovation was dependent upon cooperation which would not have happened if there were not guarantees that the cooperation would be rewarded, profitable, and protected.
Hehe...yet you don't guarantee rewards, profits or protections. Your "system" is far more likely to rob my own business or my house than protect it from being robbed. Every 3 months your system robs me. Never has someone else even attempted to do so. And if someone actually did, they'd likely get far less than you take. So your deal is kind of a joke.
i don't justify it or pretend it is different. it's just more workable for me, cos i happen to live in one of the richer countries. if i lived in africa, imaybe id not be too happy with this set up. but then, if i lived in africa i'd be living in your kind of society... no rules, no regulations, no centralized government capable of establishing order through force. yet you do not move there... i wonder why?
Hey, if it's more workable for you, then by all means live by it.
You need not wonder why I don't move to Africa. My friends and family don't live there. Many of the individuals who live there also share your own philosophy of ownership-by-force. And, judging by the rest of your statments about it, ("no rules, no regulations, no centralized government capable of establishing order through force"), you've never actually been there.
Murder and rape have everything to do with ownership. The require, as concepts, that you own your life and your body. And since you've philosophically equated ownership and possession, I see absolutely no reason why murder and rape are immune from that standard.
they do not require the idea that you OWN your life at all. that is a flatly ridiculous idea. ownership is a title, bestowed upon something you exercise control over, including the ability to transfer ownership to someone else. anyone can use a tool. you only the tool becos you paid for it and have the ability to exclude others from using it. you cannot transfer your body or to someone else... nobody can "use" your body in the way they can use a tool (unless you're in a coma or something... har har, terrible joke, sorry). people cannot crawl into your skin and control your thoughts, actions, words, and movements. humans are not property and thus the concept of ownership is inapplicable here. thus, uninvited intrusions on another's person are a violation of self, not ownership or property. which is why murder and rape are different from theft or taxation and why you have a moral right to bodily integrity (immunity from rape or murder) but not to property (immunity from someone taking your inanimate object away from you).
Sure. But your system has no natural monopoly on "protection". It has established a near-monopoly on that by doing the opposite of "protection".
Hehe...yet you don't guarantee rewards, profits or protections. Your "system" is far more likely to rob my own business or my house than protect it from being robbed. Every 3 months your system robs me. Never has someone else even attempted to do so. And if someone actually did, they'd likely get far less than you take. So your deal is kind of a joke.
this is all conjecture. it's possible nobody has attempted to rob you becos they know there would be consequences... consequences put in place by the government that asks you to pay for that protection. we're getting back to that argument we had previously about a private police force only for those who can afford it. you don't KNOW you'd be better off not having to ever pay a cent in taxes. it's easy for you to sit there and say "well nobody tried to rob me and so clearly, taxes to pay for police protection are unnecessary." but if you cannot spot the fallacy in the logic of that argument, you've lost it. at the same time, i'll admit i can't guarantee the world would degenerate into anarchy without a system of taxation. what we have here is a divergent set of assumptions about the nature of human behavior and social interaction. you seem to expect people to behave like gentlemen with or without governmental regulation. i don't, i'd expect them to behave like animals if unconstrained. i happen to think my views are more realistically supported by history and psychology and sociology and it seems to me yours are more informed by your philosophy and ideology. i wish i shared your faith in mankind, but i simply do not. so on this point, we're never going to agree or change each other's minds.
they do not require the idea that you OWN your life at all. that is a flatly ridiculous idea. ownership is a title, bestowed upon something you exercise control over, including the ability to transfer ownership to someone else. anyone can use a tool. you only the tool becos you paid for it and have the ability to exclude others from using it. you cannot transfer your body or to someone else... nobody can "use" your body in the way they can use a tool (unless you're in a coma or something... har har, terrible joke, sorry).
You might actually try thinking about this. Ownership is a title. It is bestowed. And it is something that can be transfered and controlled. Your birth is your title. Nature has bestowed it upon you. And murder, rape, and slavery are instances of transfer and control. Each is a violation of ownership.
People have been stealing lives and using other human bodies as tools for thousands of years, often times under the auspices of "government". You cannot change the fundamental nature of what makes something yours. It either is yours, or it is up for grabs. You cannot have it both ways.
people cannot crawl into your skin and control your thoughts, actions, words, and movements.
People need not crawl into my skin to control my thoughts, actions, words and movements. People need only to pretend that those thoughts, actions, words and movements are not my own and act accordingly. There's a poster here who will tell you all about doing these things, and he will actually hold doing them as moral standards.
humans are not property and thus the concept of ownership is inapplicable here.
Hehehehe......humans have been property before, soulsinging. And you still treat them as such, though not to the same extent.
thus, uninvited intrusions on another's person are a violation of self, not ownership or property.
Then what's with the "another's"???
which is why murder and rape are different from theft or taxation and why you have a moral right to bodily integrity (immunity from rape or murder) but not to property (immunity from someone taking your inanimate object away from you).
I don't see how you've differentiated those things. Where does this "moral right to bodily integrity" come from when I can simply overpower the next woman I see and take from her what I want?
Comments
And that's why I'd never suggest that you have no right to pay your taxes.
Yes, I meant that more in the general sense. Sorry.
you've got life and liberty. but the property is neither in the declaration nor the constitution. so sadly, you've picked the wrong country to live in, based on your ideals.
That penny is regulated. Just because you earned it, and you think it's yours, the fact is, is that it's true worth is dictated by those who control the money. That would be the bankers and the lawmakers and whomever they're in cahoots with.
Those are usually customers 9 and 10 in the Bar. They can get away with so much for a time, but when customers 1-7 start getting the idea that something isn't quite right, some sort of compromise must come to the fore.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Up until they are contradicted by law and murder, yes.
Yep.
That I understand. So are the people willing to pay the taxes the only ones allowed to benefit from government services (uhc, police force, public school...)?
edit : in a system where only people willing to pay actually pay. Whereas, if you don't pay the taxes you actually pay a dr when you need one, school when you need one, police when you need one?
Then don't use their money.
And please don't use the word "compromise" when you mean violence. Violence precludes compromise.
That's a possibility, yes.
I mean politics. The vote. Not violence.
I'm surprised you didn't ask me about customer 8.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No. I could want a government that protects its citizens from violence. The second to last thing I want is a government that issues currency. The last thing I want is a government responsible for violence.
What were the agreed upon consequences for not fulfilling the obligations?
If those were the agreed upon consequences, then you're not talking about violence. Violence ignore's one's will. If it is consistent with one's will, then it isn't violence.
Hehe....where's "here"?
And what magic do you have there that equates consent and fiat?
becos the us owns this land as they are the ones with the means to protect it. would you rather the us take a small cut of your income, or russia invade and take all your property, freedom, and potentially your life?
Hehe...what "means" are those?
I'll take neither.
a big ass fucking military and a shit ton of money and natural resources to drive a production society that could, for the most part, sustain itself.
you don't have that choice. you can't wish the world your way. fact is, people are greedy and selfish and the powerful will always exploit the weaker. there will always be war and violence and oppression. so who do you want to be oppressed by? the us or communist russia? or islamic fundamentalists? do you want tyranny of the majority, or majority representation with checks to protect the minority? no system is or ever will be perfect. i've yet to see you offer a better one.
So "a big ass fucking military and a shit ton of money and natural resources" are the means to "ownership"?
Hehe...didn't you accuse me one time of loving your violent idea of anarchy? And here you are paying homage to it.
I'm not here to offer you a system. I have no system to give you.
yes, your right to ownership only goes so far as your ability to protect and assert your control over the it in question. there is no moral right to ownership... neither is that old-fashioned. the concept of personal exclusionary property is very new, historically speaking.
i know you're not, you're just here to whine and complain about how unfair the current one that gave you unimaginable wealth (comparatively) and a computer to diddle around on here with me all day is.
how am i paying homage to anarchy? im saying government is a necessity to prevent violent anarchy. violence is inevitable. so do you let that violence have its way in society, or do you put checks on it to hold it accountable?
If there is no "moral right to ownership", and your right to own something only exists relative to your ability to commit acts of violence, are murder and rape moral activities?
Your "system" gave me no wealth, nor did it give me a computer. Corporations and individuals gave me those things, in exchange for what I gave them.
All you've done, by your logic, is tranfer the violence from the inter-individual to the inter-national. And despite all the dead individuals in your wake, you pretend it's different. And you justify it as "safe" or "right" or "moral" or "practical" or "compromise" or "cooperative" or whatever.
murder and rape have nothing to do with ownership. they have to do with bodily integrity. nobody can take your body from you without killing you. someone can take your house and it won't kill you, not directly. it's tough shit, but that's the way the world works.
those corporations and individuals would never have been able to do these things without the protections of the system in which they operate. the innovation was dependent upon cooperation which would not have happened if there were not guarantees that the cooperation would be rewarded, profitable, and protected.
i don't justify it or pretend it is different. it's just more workable for me, cos i happen to live in one of the richer countries. if i lived in africa, imaybe id not be too happy with this set up. but then, if i lived in africa i'd be living in your kind of society... no rules, no regulations, no centralized government capable of establishing order through force. yet you do not move there... i wonder why?
Murder and rape have everything to do with ownership. The require, as concepts, that you own your life and your body. And since you've philosophically equated ownership and possession, I see absolutely no reason why murder and rape are immune from that standard.
Sure. But your system has no natural monopoly on "protection". It has established a near-monopoly on that by doing the opposite of "protection".
Hehe...yet you don't guarantee rewards, profits or protections. Your "system" is far more likely to rob my own business or my house than protect it from being robbed. Every 3 months your system robs me. Never has someone else even attempted to do so. And if someone actually did, they'd likely get far less than you take. So your deal is kind of a joke.
Hey, if it's more workable for you, then by all means live by it.
You need not wonder why I don't move to Africa. My friends and family don't live there. Many of the individuals who live there also share your own philosophy of ownership-by-force. And, judging by the rest of your statments about it, ("no rules, no regulations, no centralized government capable of establishing order through force"), you've never actually been there.
they do not require the idea that you OWN your life at all. that is a flatly ridiculous idea. ownership is a title, bestowed upon something you exercise control over, including the ability to transfer ownership to someone else. anyone can use a tool. you only the tool becos you paid for it and have the ability to exclude others from using it. you cannot transfer your body or to someone else... nobody can "use" your body in the way they can use a tool (unless you're in a coma or something... har har, terrible joke, sorry). people cannot crawl into your skin and control your thoughts, actions, words, and movements. humans are not property and thus the concept of ownership is inapplicable here. thus, uninvited intrusions on another's person are a violation of self, not ownership or property. which is why murder and rape are different from theft or taxation and why you have a moral right to bodily integrity (immunity from rape or murder) but not to property (immunity from someone taking your inanimate object away from you).
this is all conjecture. it's possible nobody has attempted to rob you becos they know there would be consequences... consequences put in place by the government that asks you to pay for that protection. we're getting back to that argument we had previously about a private police force only for those who can afford it. you don't KNOW you'd be better off not having to ever pay a cent in taxes. it's easy for you to sit there and say "well nobody tried to rob me and so clearly, taxes to pay for police protection are unnecessary." but if you cannot spot the fallacy in the logic of that argument, you've lost it. at the same time, i'll admit i can't guarantee the world would degenerate into anarchy without a system of taxation. what we have here is a divergent set of assumptions about the nature of human behavior and social interaction. you seem to expect people to behave like gentlemen with or without governmental regulation. i don't, i'd expect them to behave like animals if unconstrained. i happen to think my views are more realistically supported by history and psychology and sociology and it seems to me yours are more informed by your philosophy and ideology. i wish i shared your faith in mankind, but i simply do not. so on this point, we're never going to agree or change each other's minds.
You might actually try thinking about this. Ownership is a title. It is bestowed. And it is something that can be transfered and controlled. Your birth is your title. Nature has bestowed it upon you. And murder, rape, and slavery are instances of transfer and control. Each is a violation of ownership.
People have been stealing lives and using other human bodies as tools for thousands of years, often times under the auspices of "government". You cannot change the fundamental nature of what makes something yours. It either is yours, or it is up for grabs. You cannot have it both ways.
People need not crawl into my skin to control my thoughts, actions, words and movements. People need only to pretend that those thoughts, actions, words and movements are not my own and act accordingly. There's a poster here who will tell you all about doing these things, and he will actually hold doing them as moral standards.
Hehehehe......humans have been property before, soulsinging. And you still treat them as such, though not to the same extent.
Then what's with the "another's"???
I don't see how you've differentiated those things. Where does this "moral right to bodily integrity" come from when I can simply overpower the next woman I see and take from her what I want?
Not to be childish but, hey, you started it