Another job no American would want

12346

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You didn't. I'm asking you if money were not a necessity, how we'd be less enslaved?
    You're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible, i.e. a society without money.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, I didn't. You said this:

    "In the society we live in, money is a necessity. All able bodied individuals 'forced' to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."

    The above implies that if money were not a necessity, no would would be forced to work. Since you've already correctly identified "food and shelter" as the real reason you are "forced" to work, I'm wondering why you're blaming money as the root of our slave status.
    I'm not. I'm pointing out that money, like regulations, are a necessity. Since you have to follow regulations, you consider yourself a slave. I'm just extending the same consideration to money. Personally, I don't think either necessarily makes anyone a slave. They can, but they don't always nor do they necessarily have to.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    You're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible, i.e. a society without money.

    ???

    Many societies have existed and exist today without money.
    I'm not. I'm pointing out that money, like regulations, are a necessity.

    Neither are "a necessity". Just because they exist, or are widely used, doesn't make them necessary.
    Since you have to follow regulations, you consider yourself a slave. I'm just extending the same consideration to money.

    But that extension makes no sense. I am forced to follow the regulations of others. And I am forced to do so often at the cost of my own freedom and my own purposes. Absent those regulations, my freedom would not be charged.

    On the other hand, you're suggesting that you are forced to use money because without money you'd have no food and shelter. Based on the extension you're making from my statements, it implies that if money were not a part of the equation, you'd somehow magically have food or shelter. This makes no sense and invalidates your extension.
    Personally, I don't think either necessarily makes anyone a slave. They can, but they don't always nor do they necessarily have to.

    A regulation agreed upon by all who must follow it would not be slavery. Obviously there are many consumers in this country who have little use for your trucking regulations.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    ???
    But that extension makes no sense. I am forced to follow the regulations of others. And I am forced to do so often at the cost of my own freedom and my own purposes. Absent those regulations, my freedom would not be charged. On the other hand, you're suggesting that you are forced to use money because without money you'd have no food and shelter. Based on the extension you're making from my statements, it implies that if money were not a necessity, you'd somehow magically have food or shelter. This makes no sense and invalidates your extension.
    Again, you're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible. But, if it's that difficult for you, substitute the word money with exchange. No society has ever existed without some form of exchange. Nor has a society existed that didn't have some form of social construct akin to regulation.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:


    A regulation agreed upon by all who must follow it would not be slavery. Obviously there are many consumers in this country who have little use for your trucking regulations.
    You agree to it by living here.

    I hear Dubai is nice this time of year.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    You agree to it by living here.

    How many times are you going to throw this argument at me until you actually think about it?

    You're implying here that there is a causal link between geography and consent. Can you at least try explaining that causal link, rather than saying "put out or get out"?
    I hear Dubai is nice this time of year.

    Then why don't you take your regulations there?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Again, you're asking me to argue for something I don't believe is possible. But, if it's that difficult for you, substitute the word money with exchange. No society has ever existed without some form of exchange. Nor has a society existed that didn't have some form of social construct akin to regulation.

    Excellent. No society, or any society worth noting, has existed without exchange. Now, how are exchange and slavery related? I'll repost your earlier statement here.

    "In the society we live in, [exchange] is a necessity. Not a luxury, not some sort of game piece to be played with, but a necessity. All able bodied individuals "forced" to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How many times are you going to throw this argument at me until you actually think about it?

    You're implying here that there is a causal link between geography and consent. Can you at least try explaining that causal link, rather than saying "put out or get out"?
    You live here. The regulations are for here. No one is forcing you to live here. Therefore, you consent. You also have the right to change those regulations if you don't like them. Unfortunately, you need a lot of people to agree with you.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Then why don't you take your regulations there?
    I'm all for it. If I ever have the power, I will.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    You live here.

    Correct.
    The regulations are for here.

    Correct.
    No one is forcing you to live here.

    Correct.
    Therefore, you consent.

    Huh? How about this?

    You live here. No one is forcing you to live here. I have a gun. I'm going to shoot you. Therefore, you consent. Does that make sense to you? Does your mere existence give me consent to do whatever I wish to you?

    Consent implies will and purpose. I cannot consent to something that is against my will and stands opposed to my purposes. Without the latter, the definition of the former is destroyed. Your logic is self-defeating and no different than the person who says "standing disproves gravity" -- without gravity, standing is a null concept. Similarly, without me stating that a direction is consistent with my will and purpose, consent becomes a null concept.
    You also have the right to change those regulations if you don't like them. Unfortunately, you need a lot of people to agree with you.

    Hehe...so in other words I don't have that right?
    I'm all for it. If I ever have the power, I will.

    http://thegunsource.com/
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Excellent. No society, or any society worth noting, has existed without exchange. Now, how are exchange and slavery related? I'll repost your earlier statement here.

    "In the society we live in, [exchange] is a necessity. Not a luxury, not some sort of game piece to be played with, but a necessity. All able bodied individuals "forced" to work - making you just as much of a slave owner as anyone."
    You are forced to exchange something to survive - therefore slavery. I don't agree with the definition, but it fits by your standards.

    Now, explain to me how a society can exist without social constructs?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    You are forced to exchange something to survive - therefore slavery.

    What is forcing you?
    I don't agree with the definition, but it fits by your standards.

    No, it doesn't.
    Now, explain to me how a society can exist without social constructs?

    It can't. But "social construct" doesn't have to mean violent gang of thugs.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Correct.



    Correct.



    Correct.



    Huh? How about this?

    You live here. No one is forcing you to live here. I have a gun. I'm going to shoot you. Therefore, you consent. Does that make sense to you? Does your mere existence give me consent to do whatever I wish to you?
    No. We have regulations (in this sense, laws) to keep you from doing just that. If you do anyway, you are punished; provided you are caught.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Consent implies will and purpose. I cannot consent to something that is against my will and stands opposed to my purposes. Without the latter, the definition of the former is destroyed. Your logic is self-defeating and no different than the person who says "standing disproves gravity" -- without gravity, standing is a null concept. Similarly, without me stating that a direction is consistent with my will and purpose, consent becomes a null concept.
    While all this rigamoral might define consent to you, "consent" itself can simply mean compliance.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...so in other words I don't have that right?
    hehehe, no. You don't have the right to singularly change society to fit your wills and purposes.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    http://thegunsource.com/
    A møøse once bit my sister.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What is forcing you?
    Biology.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, it doesn't.
    Oh yeah. Well. Yes it does.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    It can't. But "social construct" doesn't have to mean violent gang of thugs.
    Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    No. We have regulations (in this sense, laws) to keep you from doing just that. If you do anyway, you are punished; provided you are caught.

    What happens to me isn't my question. My question is whether or not you consent to me shooting you?
    While all this rigamoral might define consent to you, "consent" itself can simply mean compliance.

    Sweet fancy moses....

    First, consent does not "simply mean compliance". Compliance simply means compliance.

    Second, compliance is not immune from the same standards I detailed above. You cannot have compliance without agreement. You cannot have agreement without will.

    In other words, you cannot replace my brain with your weapon.
    hehehe, no. You don't have the right to singularly change society to fit your wills and purposes.

    Ok.
    A moose once bit my sister.

    Awesome. Maybe you could use angry moose to get you that "power".
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Biology.

    What biology?
    Oh yeah. Well. Yes it does.

    It doesn't. You don't have to trust me. You'll see why from your own answer above.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What happens to me isn't my question. My question is whether or not you consent to me shooting you?
    No one is shooting you, far.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sweet fancy moses....

    First, consent does not "simply mean compliance". Compliance simply means compliance.

    Second, compliance is not immune from the same standards I detailed above. You cannot have compliance without agreement. You cannot have agreement without will.

    In other words, you cannot replace my brain with your weapon.
    "Can," far. Consent "can" simply mean compliance.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok.



    Awesome. Maybe you could use angry moose to get you that "power".
    No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    No one is shooting you, far.

    I didn't claim someone is shooting me. I'm telling you that I'm about to shoot you. And I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent?
    "Can," far. Consent "can" simply mean compliance.

    Hehe...either way, you're using words in a manner that destroys their meaning. You've taken consent, and then you took compliance, and you stripped both of individual will. It's like suggesting that "exchange" could mean "slavery". Exchange could mean slavery if you took away the functions of each party to evaluate the deal on their own terms, relative to their own purposes. However, that completely invalidates the concept of exchange to begin with.

    "Let thy words be keen heeders of truth, for truth is no heeder of words." -David King
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I didn't claim someone is shooting me. I'm telling you that I'm about to shoot you. And I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent?
    Typical Bond villian. You're never, never supposed to tell the hero what you're about to do.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...either way, you're using words in a manner that destroys their meaning. You've taken consent, and then you took compliance, and you stripped both of individual will. It's like suggesting that "exchange" could mean "slavery". Exchange could mean slavery if you took away the functions of each party to evaluate the deal on their own terms, relative to their own purposes. However, that completely invalidates the concept of exchange to begin with.

    "Let thy words be keen heeders of truth, for truth is no heeder of words." -David King
    Neither do taxes equal theft, or regulations a firing squad.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Typical Bond villian. You're never, never supposed to tell the hero what you're about to do.

    This doesn't answer my question.

    I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
    Neither do taxes equal theft

    Theft is the taking of property by force and/or coersion. Taxes are the taking of property by force and coersion. The only difference is that taxes are taken by the state, whereas theft is done by people or corporations.
    regulations a firing squad.

    Regulations are not the same as firing squads. Regulations often require things that resemble firing squads or, in some places, are firing squads.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This doesn't answer my question.

    I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
    And I figured by now you'd realize that I'm not going to answer your question.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Theft is the taking of property by force and/or coersion. Taxes are the taking of property by force and coersion. The only difference is that taxes are taken by the state, whereas theft is done by people or corporations.
    See, now I prefer to think of taxes as a form of rent.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Regulations are not the same as firing squads. Regulations often require things that resemble firing squads or, in some places, are firing squads.
    So there isn't someone sitting in every trucker's passanger seat pointing a gun at them and forcing them to comply to regulations?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    And I figured by now you'd realize that I'm not going to answer your question.

    I'm asking you whether or not your existence at a specific place in front of my gun equals your consent to be shot?
    See, now I prefer to think of taxes as a form of rent.

    Where's your lease? Who's your landlord? What are you renting from him?
    So there isn't someone sitting in every trucker's passanger seat pointing a gun at them and forcing them to comply to regulations?

    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.

Categories