ClumsyMonkey.net

starving eyes wrote:lastly, i have a challenge for you. what gives you the right to tell somebody else what they can and cannot do on their property, or on the property of somebody who permits their activities, with their bodies? what makes you so special? unless you can come with a logical, rational justification for this, this discussion is over.

Though it still may be your property, you still are a perasite of the system. The roads that lead to your home were built and maintained by the government. Without those same roads, you wouldn't be able to get to work to pay for your home. Without those roads, people wouldn't be able to drive to your location to pay for your product to pay for your salary to pay for that home. So you don't vote? Whoop-dee-doo, you still are a dependant of the government. If you're going to pretend like you don't support the government, don't half-ass it. The money you spend? Guess what, it only has value because the government you don't support backs it. Be a true anarchist, start trading your goods for other people's things. Don't drive on the roads (unless you personally built them). Don't go to government funded school (good luck). Don't ever attend a hospital. After you give those things up, then you can truly preach.

i'll stop using their roads when they

a.) give me back my money
and
b.) allow for alternatives

they can't give you your money back because the service has been provided and you have been using that service.

there is an alternative...walk just not on sidewalks.

i'm not going to stop walking on sidewalks until i stop paying for them.

then just use the services provided, your paying for them anyway. wait....were just goin round in circles.

Not to mention it isn't your money. It has your government's name on it.

yeah but i am the one who earned it.

Through a company that also breeds off of your government.

corey, the government is a contract. we agree to pay them, they agree to provide certain services, right?

except i didn't agree and i cannot withdraw. if a man enters your home, tells you he's going to live there and cook you dinner for $5 a day, and tells you that if you try to leave or stop paying him, he'll kill you, what are you going to do? he also tells you that any attempt to cook your own dinner will result in you being shot.

by eating the food, are you somehow agreeing to his demands?

starving eyes wrote:corey, the government is a contract. we agree to pay them, they agree to provide certain services, right?

except i didn't agree and i cannot withdraw. if a man enters your home, tells you he's going to live there and cook you dinner for $5 a day, and tells you that if you try to leave or stop paying him, he'll kill you, what are you going to do? he also tells you that any attempt to cook your own dinner will result in you being shot.

by eating the food, are you somehow agreeing to his demands?

Of course you did, you didn't bother to vote against it.

ok, so if five different men arrive and all of them offer you a different meal for a different price, but tell you that no matter what, one of them is going to live there and if you don't pick, your neighbour will, do you somehow agree to it?

Are those the rules of the community I chose to live in?

Listen, bro, you're really reaching. Is it so hard to admit that you enjoy the benifits that the government provides? To know that the government is giving you more than you're giving it in return? It must eat you up inside, knowing that you condemn the services that you take for granted.

corey. listen to me because this is the last time i'll say it.

i condemn the FORCE.

I understand that... but do you enjoy the services?

some of them, yes, others, not so much. that's beside the point. going back to my example, does it really make a difference if the guy is a decent cook? i'd really rather not have him in my house.

Maybe your government really rather not have you in its "house"

non of this is defending the fact that your drugs are killing innocent mexican people. can't defend your habbits can you?

my drugs aren't. and it's not my habit, i don't drink smoke or do drugs.

the illegality of drugs creates the violence, not the product itself. if shoes were illegal, there would be violence surrounding them.

crystal baller wrote:my drugs aren't. and it's not my habit, i don't drink smoke or do drugs.

the illegality of drugs creates the violence, not the product itself. if shoes were illegal, there would be violence surrounding them.

Do me a favor quick. Go to google, type in "Sweatshops" and "nike" and see how 'little' force is involved in making these (legal) shoes.

The legality is not an issue. The profit is. As long as force breeds profit, force will be used.

i suggest you take your own advice. the majority of so called "sweatshop" labour in third world countries is <i>voluntary</i>

but that is entirely beside the point. the fact that drugs are illegal creates the violence that surrounds them. this is visible, right now, in the world around us. take prohibition, for example, which created violence. or, consider the abscence of violent alcohol and cigarette cartels.