ClumsyMonkey.net

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/pl_nm/campaign_bush_base_dc_3

Momentum is building for Kerry. I was surprised that he actually had this much support. Let's hope it only increases and Bush is finally knocked out.

if the republicans are murderers, then the democrats are thieves.

vote for neither.

Yes we all understand that.... jeeze... but that fact is that there has to be one or the other. Deal with it.

protest the system don't just pout about it.

there doesn't have to be one or the other.

they're not forcing you to vote, at least not yet. so until they do, i suggest you don't vote.

that's protesting the system.

lol Well I won't be voting since I'm Canadian...

as I mentionned earlier in another thread, if we all could agree not to vote then it would be great, but no matter what a govt will be in power since the politicians will vote, as will their friends and family thus making someone the winner.

doug wrote:there doesn't have to be one or the other.

they're not forcing you to vote, at least not yet. so until they do, i suggest you don't vote.

that's protesting the system.

no that's just sitting around waiting for something to happen.

reno, we've been over this a hundred times... voting is an act of agression... i don't agress... it's that simple.

not voting is how we further our agenda. it's how we send our message without compromising our principles.

i'm not saying you should vote, i'm saying if you want to further your agenda, protest it publically. people will just think, hey the guy just didn't vote if you don't.

bush. will. win.

there is absolutely no doubt of this. dubya <b>will</b> be re-elected. i am completely positive.

reno, that's a hell of a good point!

wouldn't voting to abolish government still be an aggressive act? because, in all truth, any move to do so is as much of a vote as checking off a piece of paper. wouldn't anarchy as you propose ALSO violate the liberties of people who WISH to keep the government? don't they have a right to government if they so desire?

just musing out loud.

wouldn't voting to abolish government still be an aggressive act? because, in all truth, any move to do so is as much of a vote as checking off a piece of paper.

that's the thing - i'm not voting to abolish the government. i'm not voting at all.

wouldn't anarchy as you propose ALSO violate the liberties of people who WISH to keep the government? don't they have a right to government if they so desire?

absolutely they do. they are more then welcome to set up a government on property they own and do things their way, just so long as they don't force me to get involved or pay for it.

Question:

Say you set up a government on your own property and have people who live there pay taxes and abide by your laws and such which they agree to by living there. How do you deal with the individuals who are born to people of that government and are now also on your property?

Do you:

a) Throw the babies off of your property
or
b) Consider them citizens of your government

??

they live on <i>your</i> property which you obtained through legitimate means (ie. not stealing it.)?

then you treat them as citizens. if they don't like it, they leave. why is this ok, because unlike the governments of the world, you have a valid claim to the land you rule over. you bought it.

wouldn't you still be imposing some sort of state upon them though?

the alchemist wrote:they live on <i>your</i> property which you obtained through legitimate means (ie. not stealing it.)?

then you treat them as citizens. if they don't like it, they leave. why is this ok, because unlike the governments of the world, you have a valid claim to the land you rule over. you bought it.

.... ok and who owns the land say... the Canadian government "stole"?

the alchemist wrote:they live on <i>your</i> property which you obtained through legitimate means (ie. not stealing it.)?

then you treat them as citizens. if they don't like it, they leave. why is this ok, because unlike the governments of the world, you have a valid claim to the land you rule over. you bought it.

technically speaking, the canadian government did get their land though legitimate means, at least most of it. The native people who lived on the land (though they didn;t consider themselves 'owning it') gave them the land. It wasn't the most moral agreement in the world, but I wouldn't say they stole it.


So if that is the case, your theory would be that for canada. The people who lived in it got together and decided how they were going to have a government. If you didn't like it, you could leave.

Oh yeah, just thought you'd be interested. It's illegal to not vote in Australia. They do random checks, and if you didn't vote, you have to pay a fine.

wouldn't you still be imposing some sort of state upon them though?

sure. but i can impose whatever i want on you as long as it's on <i>my property</i> and you're there voluntarily.

.... ok and who owns the land say... the Canadian government "stole"?

well, <i>i</i> own my piece of it. the rest of it (that is, the land that is currently unsettled) is owned by native american peoples.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 04 11:20 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the alchemist wrote:
they live on your property which you obtained through legitimate means (ie. not stealing it.)?

then you treat them as citizens. if they don't like it, they leave. why is this ok, because unlike the governments of the world, you have a valid claim to the land you rule over. you bought it.

technically speaking, the canadian government did get their land though legitimate means, at least most of it. The native people who lived on the land (though they didn;t consider themselves 'owning it') gave them the land. It wasn't the most moral agreement in the world, but I wouldn't say they stole it.

techincally speaking, the british government used stolen funds and property
to make the treaty agreements with the natives. the state cannot buy land, it has no money that it didn't steal.