ClumsyMonkey.net

Please don't assume I don't have any reasoning behind my beliefs. Thanks.

I disagree because I believe that we're all in this together. We're responsible for how our kids grow up.

For example, some of our tax money goes to education. This ensures that every child gets at least an education until they are 16 (In Ontario at least). Under your beliefs parent's would need to hire someone to educate their children. Not every parent can afford to pay for private studies for their child and therefore many kids would go without an education.
Even those kids whose parents could afford a private tutor would eventually have difficulties getting their education as each year not only would they need to pay the educator, they'd also need to buy textbooks (which are by no means cheap) and many other necessities for even a semi-decent education. The price would become oftly expensive.

So now we have a population of kids who are uneducated in a world which demands a university diploma just to get looked at for many jobs. At least under a govt everyone gets an equal education and if you decide you want better than you pay extra. No one is left behind. It's compassion.

It's compassion which separates our beliefs. You know what? I could agree with your beliefs only if I knew that every person would benefit from it, but to me there would be far too many people left behind, and our world would be better off under a govt. For you the idea is great. You're educated and healthy. You aren't poor or scrounging for money. You can afford luxuries many people can't. But for millions upon millions of people it's not something they'd be able to handle.

So, what some of you are saying is, if we don't smoke, and don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, we don't have the right to go out and enjoy a night at a bar with our friends? Yeah, that's fair.

And, before you say, "Oh, so you'll pollute your body with alcohol, but can't deal with secondhand smoke?" I don't drink, but I go to bars occasionally if my friends invite me.

Jim, could you use your crystal ball to look into the future and tell me whose going to win the stanley cup?

how do you know any of that would happen if people were left to their own? why do you think the government somehow solves all the worlds problems?

newsflash: there are still poor. there are still hungry. there still are uneducated. and we live in a blessed, wonderful, gods-gift to mankind demockracy.

what has YOUR government done about the poor hungry, etc etc? nothing. do you know why? because nothing can be done. there will always be poor and hungry until the poor and hungry decide to do something about it.

you say you have compasssion, yet you support and condone VIOLENCE in order to make your beliefs work. THAT'S the real difference between us two - my beliefs do NOT require force, whereas yours do.

moving back to the topic at hand.

Nikki: first of all, going to the bar is not a right. and even if it were, rights are not guarentees. the right to life does not mean you will not fall sick and die, the right to happiness does not mean you will be happy, etc etc.

so, if you make a CHOICE to stay home rather then brave the second hand smoke you encounter at bars, then you're exercising your right to CHOOSE. You do not have the right to tell property/bar owners that they cannot excerise their right to CHOOSE to let smokers into their bars.

same can be turned around, how do you know everything I said wouldn't happen?

yes there are poor and hungry people in our world but there would be far more in my opinion if everyone was for themselves.
There are govts helping defeat poverty. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens are in every city.

I do not support violence, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me in your next post about how I do.

Sorry everyone for taking this off-topic. They asked for my reply so I gave them it.

mosaik wrote:Murderthon 2000 is an event where all the participants who attend will be shot and killed by a murderer. If you willingly go, knowing these are the rules and you will be shot if you attend, then those who shot you have done no wrong.

Is this a real event?

Jim - that's a good point. how do i know it won't happen?

i don't. i mean, i know the price of education wouldn't skyrocket because that's simple economics.

remember that homeless shelters, soup kitchens and welfare programs all require poor and hungry in order to function. if they were actually helping the poor and hungry, then pretty soon there'd be no poor or hungry. i think it would be very interesting to go to a soup kitchen and see how many people eating there have been coming for a decade or more.

as for how you support violence, well, you support government programs like tax and those programs are violent programs. if i refuse to pay my taxes you would like to see me jailed, and in order to have me jailed, force will be neccessary. you believe that the programs our taxes support are just and therefore have no problem authorizing a government to take my hard earned money by force. watch the movie i linked to in the "self ownership" thread to see why neither you nor your government have any right to do this.

Corey - if only it were. you can thank the fascists for this, but death matches are illegal.

nikki4982 wrote:So, what some of you are saying is, if we don't smoke, and don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, we don't have the right to go out and enjoy a night at a bar with our friends? Yeah, that's fair.

And, before you say, "Oh, so you'll pollute your body with alcohol, but can't deal with secondhand smoke?" I don't drink, but I go to bars occasionally if my friends invite me.

you don't.

you do not have the <i>right</i> to go to bar. going to a bar is a privilege, that is given and can be revoked by the owner of that bar. if the owner decides to allow smoking in his bar, what gives you, a person who has not sacrificed one fucking minute of their life towards that bar, the right to decide what the owner, who has sacrificed countless hours of their life for that bar, can permit on his or her own fucking property?

why do all of you refuse to answer that question? none of your reasons, complaints, etc. are valid until you supply a response.

what gives you the right to tell another person how they can use their own property, and to back that order up with force?[/b]

OK, Chris, Doug, and I keep saying the same things over and over again. Face it, you're making the choice to go to places where smoking is permitted. If you all have such a huge problem with going to bars with smoke, open one where smoking is not allowed, don't go to a bar with smokers, or just suck it up and go there. Two or three nights of going out to a bar where people smoke will not kill you. It takes more than a couple times to give you lung cancer. If the converse were true, we'd all be dying right now. It's that simple.

And Jim, stop and think about this. Who is turning this into an anarchist thread?

Smoking in a bar is ALSO a "privilege", not a right.

Whatever, I'm not gonna continue this argument because talking about smoking makes me angry and depressed in general. It serves no purpose other than killing people, and should be illegal. That's all I have to say.

You know what? Let's even make this really easy:
For J-Neli, please answer the following questions:
1. What, exactly, gives you the right to tell a person who owns private property what they can, and cannot, do with that property?
2. If you are, in fact, so compassionate, then why are you forcing me to support causes I don't believe in by making me pay taxes and the like?
3. Why, exactly, is it my job to provide for everyone else?


PS: Doug, I've come out and openly agreed with you on a lot of points now. The threads where I support you are growing to outnumber the ones where I don't. So I hope you'll take the following to heart.

The "k" thing is retarded. Very. All I can think of when you do it is the people who spell Microsoft as Micro$oft, while they sit in their parents basement with their saving throws and homemade lightsabres saying things like "Bill Gates, I lash out at thee! Hur, hur, hur."

It's particularly retarded when you don't actually remove the "c" before inserting the "k."

I hope this is goodbye wrote:And Jim, stop and think about this. Who is turning this into an anarchist thread?

Yes I know. I apologized for taking it off topic. And I'll apologize again. Sorry All!

It's not a problem, I just saw irony in that.

ya I know, I saw the irony as well lol, but it seems like the debate is swaying in that direction, as that's really the only rebuttal to anything me and Rob have said.... so we move on

Narbus wrote:For J-Neli, please answer the following questions:
1. What, exactly, gives you the right to tell a person who owns private property what they can, and cannot, do with that property?
2. If you are, in fact, so compassionate, then why are you forcing me to support causes I don't believe in by making me pay taxes and the like?
3. Why, exactly, is it my job to provide for everyone else?

1. Well nothing gives me the right to tell anyone what to do with their property. Actually, the government can tell them what they can and cannot do though. When you currently purchase property you sign a contract in one way or another stating you will abide by the "laws of the land". If you don't want to abide by these laws than you don't purchase property. As well, under said contract I am 99.9% sure that it would stipulate that laws can/will change from time to time. If you don't like it, than don't purchase the property.

Really when it comes down to it the country/region/city you live in owns the land. You cannot set up your own state within your property. You are merely a tenant. These principals have been in place for ages and unless anyone decides to actually stand up for something different, they will remain this way. Therefore the government has the right to say what you can or cannot do on your property. You've agreed to these terms, and if you didn't want it that way than you ccould make an attempt to negotiate.

2. Why do we pay taxes? Because taxes in some form or another benefit us. If one program doesn't benefit you, I'm sure another will. This is something that is understood by the entire population. The fact is you can't have an option on which programs you would like to contribute to because than you may come across a time when you're in need of a program that you didn't pay for. Too many people would opt out of the more expensive options and you'd have an entire population of people who couldn't get something they might really need.

For example. One year you're strapped for cash. You get your tax option sheet but 60% of the options on there are too expensive for you at the moment and you must make up for the people who decide not to fund the program. It just so happens health care is one of those. You decide that because you're low on funds you really could probably go without some programs. Months later you become ill. You still don't have much money and this illness is forcing you to miss time off of work. You can't go see a doctor because you opted out of that portion of your taxes. You'll have to ride it out for better or for worse. If everyone didn't have the option of opting out of certain programs than all programs would be open to anyone who needs them.

3. You provide for others because our society is based on compassion. We make our strongest attempts to ensure everyone has money to buy the basic necessities. If everyone decided "to hell with welfare", there would direct repercussions. People wouldn't be able to afford food, shelter, clothes, etc. They would become sick, and homeless. The population of people who were under such circumstances would be astounding. Disease would become rampant eventually and I'd be willing to guarentee that it would eventually cause problems throughout the entire population. There have been ample amounts of examples of diseases which have struck small populations which have in turn moved on to affect a plethora of other larger ones.

We don't believe that any one human should have to live a life of agony. Not one man is better than another. Do you believe that anyone should have to live a life of misery and suffering, because you want to be selfish? Essentially that's what this comes down to. Are you selfish?

sorry about any grammar or whatever, it's late and I just finished working an 8 hour shift... I'm sure you're all able to decipher it...

J-Neli wrote:1. Well nothing gives me the right to tell anyone what to do with their property. Actually, the government can tell them what they can and cannot do though.

Why? Because they have the biggest guns? I don't want them to have the right to tell me what to do with my own body, so long as I don't threaten the person, liberty, or property of others, yet here we are. So why does government get to have this right? I didn't give it to them, it was taken by force from me. Is that fine? Is that fair?

When you currently purchase property you sign a contract in one way or another stating you will abide by the "laws of the land". If you don't want to abide by these laws than you don't purchase property. As well, under said contract I am 99.9% sure that it would stipulate that laws can/will change from time to time. If you don't like it, than don't purchase the property.

So I have no place to live, because I don't want to give up my fundamental liberties. What kind of government are you endorsing here?

Really when it comes down to it the country/region/city you live in owns the land.

Hmm. Let's look at the deed. Nope, I don't see "Government" listed as having worked hard to pay for that house, I see my dad's name. Strange, that.

You cannot set up your own state within your property. You are merely a tenant. These principals have been in place for ages

"Been in place for ages," Yes, of course, "a million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?"

Also interesting to note: For ages, interracial dating was taboo, slavery was fine, and women existed for cooking dinner and popping out kids. Do you endore those practices?

and unless anyone decides to actually stand up for something different, they will remain this way. Therefore the government has the right to say what you can or cannot do on your property. You've agreed to these terms, and if you didn't want it that way than you ccould make an attempt to negotiate.

No, I did not agree to these terms. I most emphatically did not. I was, by chance of nature, born here, with no asking done on my part. These laws were forced upon me.

2. Why do we pay taxes? Because taxes in some form or another benefit us. If one program doesn't benefit you, I'm sure another will.

So why am I forced to pay for the programs that don't benefit me? Why do I have to pay for the programs that benefit me that I don't want? If I don't want to pay, then why will I be forced to by armed men? How is that fair? How is that just?

This is something that is understood by the entire population.

http://www.self-gov.org/
http://www.anarchy.org/
http://www.libertarian.org/

Not the entire population. Not by a long shot.

The fact is you can't have an option on which programs you would like to contribute to because than you may come across a time when you're in need of a program that you didn't pay for. Too many people would opt out of the more expensive options and you'd have an entire population of people who couldn't get something they might really need.

And then they'd realize that a short-sighted view of the world is a foolish one to hold. And those people who were intelligent and planned ahead will be rewarded for their extra work. I see a happy ending. People are educated, and intelligence rewarded. In your situation, the stupid are led by the hand and allowed to wallow in their ignorance. Why do you wish that on people?

For example. One year you're strapped for cash. You get your tax option sheet but 60% of the options on there are too expensive for you at the moment and you must make up for the people who decide not to fund the program. It just so happens health care is one of those.

Problems:
1. You're assuming I rely on the government for insurance. I have a job, I get insurance through them.
2. In regards to the friend I mentioned in another post: Taking 1/4th of my paycheck is likely the reason I'm strapped for cash.
3. Again, it's not my job to hold your hand and lead you through life. That's your job. Why are you so hell-bent on this?

You decide that because you're low on funds you really could probably go without some programs. Months later you become ill. You still don't have much money and this illness is forcing you to miss time off of work. You can't go see a doctor because you opted out of that portion of your taxes. You'll have to ride it out for better or for worse. If everyone didn't have the option of opting out of certain programs than all programs would be open to anyone who needs them.

I made a decision, I take the consequences. That's how it should be.

3. You provide for others because our society is based on compassion. We make our strongest attempts to ensure everyone has money to buy the basic necessities. If everyone decided "to hell with welfare", there would direct repercussions. People wouldn't be able to afford food, shelter, clothes, etc. They would become sick, and homeless. The population of people who were under such circumstances would be astounding. Disease would become rampant eventually and I'd be willing to guarentee that it would eventually cause problems throughout the entire population. There have been ample amounts of examples of diseases which have struck small populations which have in turn moved on to affect a plethora of other larger ones.

For a society supposedly bent on curing these 'social ills' there are sure a lot of homeless people, a lot of people without insurance, a ton disease, and thousands living in poverty.

I don't think your method is working.

We don't believe that any one human should have to live a life of agony. Not one man is better than another. Do you believe that anyone should have to live a life of misery and suffering, because you want to be selfish? Essentially that's what this comes down to. Are you selfish?

I believe that people should take responsibility for their own lives.
Tell me, can you think of an easier way to rid ourselves of poverty than to make a person realize they need to work to get money? Can you think of a better way to end homelessness than to show a person that he can get a house if he'll work for it?

I take responsibility for myself and my actions. I let you do the same.

To be honest, you are far more selfish than I am. You are so fixated on your conscience that you're willing to drag the entire country along with you just to keep it quiet.

I'm not selfish. I just want my money. You, though, want everyone's money, just so you can feel good about yourself.

http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10-a.html

a fine read indeed. however aristocrats from the 1800's are practically well off, and don't need government assistance. (aside from having taxes taxen from them, as well as being locked up) but one thing i do admire about Bakunin, he tried many times to revolt, and he did it without force.

Smoking in a bar is ALSO a "privilege", not a right.

Whatever, I'm not gonna continue this argument because talking about smoking makes me angry and depressed in general. It serves no purpose other than killing people, and should be illegal. That's all I have to say

.

yes, smoking in a bar is a privilege, not a right. and who decides whether or not we should have that privilege? if you guessed "the owner of the bar", you've won!

and i don't think you really believe that "smoking should be illegal". but you're entitled to what you think is your opinion.

jim - see narbus' post.

narbus - spelling america as amerika is typographical resistance. if everybody did it, the state would crumble and politicians would become confused. besides, it just makes it seem more soviet, which is the worst thing in the world. well besides, you know, a jihad.

[wild tangent]hey! that's how we can end the smoking debate! we'll put out a press release saying new york politicans have declared a "jihad" on smoking! everybody hates and fears jihads so the public will quickly be swayed to our opinion.... [/wild tangent]

er. i guess my point is that i am also opposed to typographical resistance.

You guys are really good arguers. What I would give to be able to put my thoughts across like all you guys.

Oh, sigh.

Mwah.

u know what , i think being straight-edge should be illegal.

eat drink smoke and be FUCKING MERRY

all u anti-this anti-that people spend too much fuckin time fighting for things that aren't gonna change, give it up and quit trying to make everyone else think like you

BloodRayn wrote:u know what , i think being straight-edge should be illegal.

uh yea okie