Got kicked out of a thrift store....

[OC for ME]

Then they accuse you of being an anarchist, implying someone who does not wish to be involuntarily governed is somehow less ethical and more violent prone than the State. <snip>

Bingo!!, and some of them, anarchists can be, less ethical and all, that is.

The state does come in handy when a few of your anachro-capitalist neighbors band together to take that which is yours, by force, and you are not able to gain a redress of wrongs from your anachro-capitalist neighbors peacefully. I mean, they did take your stuff, did they not? Who do you turn to to gain a redress of wrongs that you cannot/could not obtain, peacefully, on your own?
This is where anarchist miss the point of government. They always presume their fellow anachro-capitalists will not covet thy neighbor's stuff.

Anyway. The vote is critical to getting those immoral/unethical politicians out of office. Unless of course, you and your anarchist brethren will remove them by some other means.

I choose to cling to the government that The Founders envisioned I would have, that they guaranteed, in writing, that I deserve to have. To re-achieve that government requires me to vote for its reinstatement. Following the law is what liberty demands in my view. If the law is "bad" then we work to change the law. "Societal drop-outs" as i term them, anachro-capitalists, have little to no interests beyond their own small sphere of influence. The "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" syndrome.

Bless their hearts.

 

[OC for ME]

Precisely.

This is a very common confusion for many people. Confusing ethics with morality can be a bit problematic. The root of such a question, in dealing with morality would be properly set as "is protecting the lives of all citizens, to the best of your ability, within your morals?" The answer, should obviously be yes. However, the ethical question of "how can we accomplish this, as a society?" is not something that can be dictated by morality anyway, because everyone has at least slightly different moral values.

Basically, morality is for the individual, ethics are for social diktat.

No. Morals and ethics can be and should be codified within the law. The Federal Constitution does this and provides for a very good set of "guidelines" for the individual citizen to follow. If it is bad for the state to infringe upon a citizen's right, it is also bad for a citizen to infringe upon another citizen's rights. If I infringe upon one or more of your rights then you can choose either the state to seek a redress of wrongs, or you, directly, can seek a redress of wrongs. I would hope that you would choose the state over your own acts.

 

[usmcmustang]

Question #1 – Would it be wrong (immoral) for another person to initiate aggression against you or to attempt to steal your property?

Question #2 – Would it be wrong (immoral) for a group of people to initiate aggression against you or to attempt to steal your property?

Question #3 – Why is it right (moral) that the government seemingly can do both? The government, through its law enforcement “arm,” aggresses against its citizenry all the time and steals (under the guise of “taxation”) through the threat of aggression and often manifests itself in actual aggression.

Question #4 – Why do you “believe” that government can do what you don’t “believe” another person or group of persons can morally do? Is it that you “believe” the government can act in ways (immorally) that no other person or persons can? Where and how did you come to such a “belief?” Is that “belief” (actually superstition) what renders you a “slave” to government? Is that submission to “slavery” in YOUR head? I’m pretty sure it’s in the “head” of government… it always will be. But if YOU can relinquish the superstition, it really won’t matter. YOU will no longer be a “slave.”

As for "morality"... there are simply two principles one needs to adhere to in order to be "moral"... Don't initiate aggression against another (don't assault, murder, rape, etc.) and respect the property rights of another (don't steal, fraud, extort, etc.). "Live" by those two principles and one WILL be "moral." And, if you don't "see" that government, in its words (laws) and deeds (enforcement), violates those two principles ALL THE TIME, then you are "stuck" in the belief/superstition of "authority." All governments (dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies, republics, democracies) have and will aggress and steal until the end of time, with the consent of the "governed." Why? Well because the superstition of "authority" is well entrenched in the minds of not only those who govern (the ruling "class") but in the minds of their "subjects."

 

[Gallowmere]

No. Morals and ethics can be and should be codified within the law. The Federal Constitution does this and provides for a very good set of "guidelines" for the individual citizen to follow. If it is bad for the state to infringe upon a citizen's right, it is also bad for a citizen to infringe upon another citizen's rights. If I infringe upon one or more of your rights then you can choose either the state to seek a redress of wrongs, or you, directly, can seek a redress of wrongs. I would hope that you would choose the state over your own acts.

No, morality, by definition, cannot be codified as law, except in Dictatorships, and Monarchies that have no checks against a single individual. Just because you may agree with a specific part of another person's morals, does not mean that you share his or her entire moral code. That's where ethics comes into play.

For a handy reference comparison of the two: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

As for your statement regarding the state, you are actually incorrect in your assertion. I have never once called upon the state to do anything for me, nor will I, ever. If someone were to ever trespass against me in such a manner that I cannot handle it on my own, it's time for me to leave, in one form or another. All I have ever asked of the state is to be left alone, a request that it has obliged, relatively speaking. Were I so inclined, there are plenty of ways that I could get that last bit of freedom that is denied by taxation, but I am sure my wife might object to me just up and disappearing one day.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

If you find yourself across the ocean, putting your cross hairs on the anatomy of another human, whom you know nothing of other than he has not personally been the reason you are there, who in fact may be defending his home, meanwhile you are receiving compensation for it? That is murder, and makes you a hired assassin. You do not have to travel around the world to defend your life.

I have done this. I was and still am, very good at it. I have killed. I have never murdered. Military Service seems to be an embarrassment for you. You carry a pistol the way the USA carries a Military, for defense. It is not the role of the Soldier to set national policy, they carry it out. It is the government that sets foriegn policy, it is the government that YOU elect that send Soldiers to do things that you find distastfull. I follow LAWFUL orders, I am not an automaton that does not know what is "right" from what is "wrong". I do not kill indiscriminately. I am the one that is standing at Freedoms Gate, the Soldier that keeps the bad guys from US soil. When you wake up in the middle of the night, remember there is a Soldier out there guarding your shores and your precious Freedom. You bad mouth the "tool" not who wields it.

 

[Gallowmere]

I have done this. I was and still am, very good at it. I have killed. I have never murdered. Military Service seems to be an embarrassment for you. You carry a pistol the way the USA carries a Military, for defense. It is not the role of the Soldier to set national policy, they carry it out. It is the government that sets foriegn policy, it is the government that YOU elect that send Soldiers to do things that you find distastfull. I follow LAWFUL orders, I am not an automaton that does not know what is "right" from what is "wrong". I do not kill indiscriminately. I am the one that is standing at Freedoms Gate, the Soldier that keeps the bad guys from US soil. When you wake up in the middle of the night, remember there is a Soldier out there guarding your shores and your precious Freedom. You bad mouth the "tool" not who wields it.

No offense intended, but I am pretty sure that the old "I was just following orders" routine got shot down in court a long time ago. Now, you have stated that you do not kill indiscriminately, and I can, of course, respect that. However, in the same breath, you say "It is not the role of the Soldier to set national policy, they carry it out." So, which is it? I only ask that, because it seems like all of the "oops, didn't mean to cap that civilian" just got written off as collateral damage, no matter what the actual situation was, with a couple of minor (and well deserved) exceptions.

More to the point, the US military and CIA have been caught doing all kinds of extrajudicial crap over the last decade or so. Where were the trials for violating laws? Oh...right... What truly bothers me about this, is that if there ever were to be such trials, those who make the orders would likely get away scot-free, while the footsoldiers of their bad policy took the fall.

 

[The Big Guy]

Question #1 – Would it be wrong (immoral) for another person to initiate aggression against you or to attempt to steal your property?

Question #2 – Would it be wrong (immoral) for a group of people to initiate aggression against you or to attempt to steal your property?

Question #3 – Why is it right (moral) that the government seemingly can do both? The government, through its law enforcement “arm,” aggresses against its citizenry all the time and steals (under the guise of “taxation”) through the threat of aggression and often manifests itself in actual aggression.

Question #4 – Why do you “believe” that government can do what you don’t “believe” another person or group of persons can morally do? Is it that you “believe” the government can act in ways (immorally) that no other person or persons can? Where and how did you come to such a “belief?” Is that “belief” (actually superstition) what renders you a “slave” to government? Is that submission to “slavery” in YOUR head? I’m pretty sure it’s in the “head” of government… it always will be. But if YOU can relinquish the superstition, it really won’t matter. YOU will no longer be a “slave.”

As for "morality"... there are simply two principles one needs to adhere to in order to be "moral"... Don't initiate aggression against another (don't assault, murder, rape, etc.) and respect the property rights of another (don't steal, fraud, extort, etc.). "Live" by those two principles and one WILL be "moral." And, if you don't "see" that government, in its words (laws) and deeds (enforcement), violates those two principles ALL THE TIME, then you are "stuck" in the belief/superstition of "authority." All governments (dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies, republics, democracies) have and will aggress and steal until the end of time, with the consent of the "governed." Why? Well because the superstition of "authority" is well entrenched in the minds of not only those who govern (the ruling "class") but in the minds of their "subjects."

#1 No.
#2 No.
#3 Don't know of anyone who says it is.
#4 I havn't heard anyone say this either.

Is it immoral for you to lie to me? If you see the immorality you describe and do nothing about it, are you acting in a moral way? If under some future gun control measure your neighbor is set upon, and you let it happen without interdiction, are you acting in a moral way? We give power to governments by two methods, directly authorizing it by asking our politicians for it, or by turning a blind eye to the things they do that trample our natural rights. If it is correct for you to demand your natural rights, is it not also correct for some to voluntarily give them away? Do they have that right?

I do believe in limited government because i want paved streets to drive on. I want fire protection for my home and community. I want water delivered to my home. I want those things that only can be achieved by an organized effort. Understand, I say "limited". The problem with government is we don't hold it in check by activism. Limited government is what was envisioned by the founding fathers. They knew that a dictatorship wouldn't work, and they knew that total lack of government doesn't work either.

TBG

 

[Primus]

Bingo!!, and some of them, anarchists can be, less ethical and all, that is.

The state does come in handy when a few of your anachro-capitalist neighbors band together to take that which is yours, by force, and you are not able to gain a redress of wrongs from your anachro-capitalist neighbors peacefully. I mean, they did take your stuff, did they not? Who do you turn to to gain a redress of wrongs that you cannot/could not obtain, peacefully, on your own?
This is where anarchist miss the point of government. They always presume their fellow anachro-capitalists will not covet thy neighbor's stuff.

Anyway. The vote is critical to getting those immoral/unethical politicians out of office. Unless of course, you and your anarchist brethren will remove them by some other means.

I choose to cling to the government that The Founders envisioned I would have, that they guaranteed, in writing, that I deserve to have. To re-achieve that government requires me to vote for its reinstatement. Following the law is what liberty demands in my view. If the law is "bad" then we work to change the law. "Societal drop-outs" as i term them, anachro-capitalists, have little to no interests beyond their own small sphere of influence. The "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" syndrome.

Bless their hearts.

Wow oc... I find myself agreeing with you yet again..well said sir.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[usmcmustang]

I have done this. I was and still am, very good at it. I have killed. I have never murdered. Military Service seems to be an embarrassment for you. You carry a pistol the way the USA carries a Military, for defense. It is not the role of the Soldier to set national policy, they carry it out. It is the government that sets foriegn policy, it is the government that YOU elect that send Soldiers to do things that you find distastfull. I follow LAWFUL orders, I am not an automaton that does not know what is "right" from what is "wrong". I do not kill indiscriminately. I am the one that is standing at Freedoms Gate, the Soldier that keeps the bad guys from US soil. When you wake up in the middle of the night, remember there is a Soldier out there guarding your shores and your precious Freedom. You bad mouth the "tool" not who wields it.

You portray yourself as a virtuous protector and defender... and you are correct, you "protect and defend" the state. YOU personally, may not be an "automaton" and always do the "right" thing, but you "work for" an institution that initiates aggression and steals as a matter of policy. You rely on "the state" to define for you what may or may not be aggressive or defensive in nature. It's like saying, I'm a "moral" person and would never doe anything "wrong" (murder, pillage, etc.)... I just happen to be employed by the MAFIA as a bookkeeper. And this "Freedoms Gate" at which you stand, why hasn't it resulted in more personal freedoms instead of reduction of personal freedoms over these many years? Truth is, what you and others do in support, protection, and defense of "the state" is to enslave in spirit, body, and mind... especially "mind." Because there is where lies this superstition of government authority... in the minds of those enslaved.

 

[OC for ME]

No, morality, by definition, cannot be codified as law, <snip>

BS. The US Constitution is founded, based on a moral compass. Thus, morality is codified into the Supreme Law Of The Land. The state is restrained and as such, we should restrain ourselves we we would restrain the state.

Question #1 – Would it be wrong (immoral) for another person to initiate aggression against you or to attempt to steal your property? <snip>

BS, again. Thou shalt not steal, murder, covet thy neighbor's wife. You will honor thy father & mother. Don't tell any whoppers in general, big ones anyway, or tell a whopper about your neighbor, again, big ones.

These are moral directions. It is so very easy to say that you won't do this or that. It is another thing to tolerate your other neighbor from doing that which you will not do. Ethical is how close do you walk the line between being moral and immoral.

Shooting a BG in a justified SD event is immoral, thou shalt not kill, and yet it is ethical cuz nobody has the right to take your life.

The OP got kicked out of a store because he had a gun, that is BS. In UT, I thought, mistakenly it seems, that "they" were pretty much beyond that sort of BS. Boycott DI and tell every one you know to do likewise. That is all we have at our disposal is a boycott. They have the right to not allow your gat in their store, on their property.

 

[usmcmustang]

If not for government...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmOzQRq0ak

 

[Gallowmere]

BS. The US Constitution is founded, based on a moral compass. Thus, morality is codified into the Supreme Law Of The Land. The state is restrained and as such, we should restrain ourselves we we would restrain the state.

I really think you missed the point, entirely. After reading your response to Mustang, it is now clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what the difference between morals and ethics are. One is on the individual level and entirely personal, and one is societal and systemic. That's it, end of story. There's nothing more complex about it.

 

[usmcmustang]

Appears a good number here defend their statist positions (defending the institution of government) on the grounds of patriotism. It’s patriotism that the state relies on for duping the citizenry into doing its bidding. I’m going to plagiarize another’s words here re: patriotism. The words are more than a century old but are still very true today and always will be. “…conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot consider themselves nobler, better, grander, more intelligent (more moral) than those living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that from early infancy the mind of the child is provided with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, (you name it) etc. When the child has reached manhood he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner…”

 

[usmcmustang]

#1 No.
#2 No.
#3 Don't know of anyone who says it is.
#4 I havn't heard anyone say this either.

Is it immoral for you to lie to me? If you see the immorality you describe and do nothing about it, are you acting in a moral way? If under some future gun control measure your neighbor is set upon, and you let it happen without interdiction, are you acting in a moral way? We give power to governments by two methods, directly authorizing it by asking our politicians for it, or by turning a blind eye to the things they do that trample our natural rights. If it is correct for you to demand your natural rights, is it not also correct for some to voluntarily give them away? Do they have that right?
"
I do believe in limited government because i want paved streets to drive on. I want fire protection for my home and community. I want water delivered to my home. I want those things that only can be achieved by an organized effort. Understand, I say "limited". The problem with government is we don't hold it in check by activism. Limited government is what was envisioned by the founding fathers. They knew that a dictatorship wouldn't work, and they knew that total lack of government doesn't work either.

TBG

Pardon me, but I think that if you re-read how questions 1 and 2 are framed, your answers would be "yes"... but maybe not.

And begging to politicians to do this or that is like unto a slave begging to his master for more freedom.... "Master, I know you're the boss of me and all but it certainly would be nice if you'd just let me have or do this one thing that's very important to me and I believe has already been identified as a right that was given to me long ago." Well, guess what, the Master didn't hear anything after "... I know you're the boss of me..."

"We" give power to a government because "we" imagine it exists. Oh, the politicians and judges and all exist... and that's the reality... government and it's "right" to rule you (control you through violence and threat of violence) is in your mind... and of course it's in the minds of the politicians and judges, etc.)

And yes, I may voluntarily surrender a right to another. But others may not require that I surrender anything. A group of "elders" getting together 230 years ago and deciding how I should conduct my affairs and binding me to their whys and wherefores is a ridiculous premise.

And as far paved streets, fire protection, water, etc., etc., why would one believe that government is the only way to achieve those? Just for your possible "amusement," I'd suggest you take 20 minutes and listen (don't need to watch and don't need to know who is talking)... just listen to the "idea." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmOzQRq0ak

This "limited government" you wish for is no government at all, for government by definition is violence and threat of violence. You simply pine for "organization"... that can certainly be had without violence or threat of violence. Realize that government, limited though it might be, will always employ violence or threat of violence to enforce its rule.

 

[The Big Guy]

Appears a good number here defend their statist positions (defending the institution of government) on the grounds of patriotism. It’s patriotism that the state relies on for duping the citizenry into doing its bidding. I’m going to plagiarize another’s words here re: patriotism. The words are more than a century old but are still very true today and always will be. “…conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot consider themselves nobler, better, grander, more intelligent (more moral) than those living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that from early infancy the mind of the child is provided with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, (you name it) etc. When the child has reached manhood he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner…”

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm trying to understand why you feel the way you do, if I do understand. You believe in "no" government at all, is that correct? If we truly had a government of, by, and for the people, would you object to that too?

As it stands now, do you use the public roads? Parks? Water service? If your house was on fire, would you call the Fire Department? If your neighbors house was on fire, would you want him to call the FD to keep it from catching your house on fire too? Do you make use of the currency (which is another issue) authorized by the government? Do you work in exchange for that currency? If your neighbor loudly played annoying music every morning at 3 am, and they would not give in to your request to cease, would you stop them by force? Would you move letting him run you off your property? Or would it be better to enlist the help of your other neighbors and fellow citizens (government) to determine if you do have a case and put a stop to it?

I'm thinking that if I felt that the best government was no government, I'd pack up the mules and head for the wilderness. There's still plenty of it. If I was young and in good health I might pull my mules in right behind yours.

The point is, we have to work with what we have until we can figure how to change it. Of course I don't know how we would all ever agree on the end product. It reminds me of the old Hager the Horrible comic strip where Hager was having
a pint with the Friar who says something like, "Man will never get along until all men learn to communicate". To which Hager replies "yeh, but how we gonna get'em all to speak Norwegian?"

TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

Pardon me, but I think that if you re-read how questions 1 and 2 are framed, your answers would be "yes"... but maybe not.

And begging to politicians to do this or that is like unto a slave begging to his master for more freedom.... "Master, I know you're the boss of me and all but it certainly would be nice if you'd just let me have or do this one thing that's very important to me and I believe has already been identified as a right that was given to me long ago." Well, guess what, the Master didn't hear anything after "... I know you're the boss of me..."

"We" give power to a government because "we" imagine it exists. Oh, the politicians and judges and all exist... and that's the reality... government and it's "right" to rule you (control you through violence and threat of violence) is in your mind... and of course it's in the minds of the politicians and judges, etc.)

And yes, I may voluntarily surrender a right to another. But others may not require that I surrender anything. A group of "elders" getting together 230 years ago and deciding how I should conduct my affairs and binding me to their whys and wherefores is a ridiculous premise.

And as far paved streets, fire protection, water, etc., etc., why would one believe that government is the only way to achieve those? Just for your possible "amusement," I'd suggest you take 20 minutes and listen (don't need to watch and don't need to know who is talking)... just listen to the "idea." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmOzQRq0ak

This "limited government" you wish for is no government at all, for government by definition is violence and threat of violence. You simply pine for "organization"... that can certainly be had without violence or threat of violence. Realize that government, limited though it might be, will always employ violence or threat of violence to enforce its rule.

You are correct sir, I misread 1 and 2 and my answer would be "yes".

But herein is the difference between you and me. I believe they work for me, and I am the boss and I have personal experience to hold fast to that belief. I have personal experience with private sector employees that don't do as I wish as well and have had to fire them. This is exactly what we need to do with our public sector employees come next election, fire them.

Your definition of government is your definition, not mine. Limited government is just that, limited government. Limited in this case by the Constitution which tells it what it can and cannot do. There is no utopia. Man is fallible and as long as we are there will never be this perfect non-government world you seek. I wish you were right.

TBG

 

[usmcmustang]

You are correct sir, I misread 1 and 2 and my answer would be "yes".

But herein is the difference between you and me. I believe they work for me, and I am the boss and I have personal experience to hold fast to that belief. I have personal experience with private sector employees that don't do as I wish as well and have had to fire them. This is exactly what we need to do with our public sector employees come next election, fire them.

Your definition of government is your definition, not mine. Limited government is just that, limited government. Limited in this case by the Constitution which tells it what it can and cannot do. There is no utopia. Man is fallible and as long as we are there will never be this perfect non-government world you seek. I wish you were right.

TBG

I too am not attempting confrontation... simply discussion and understanding.

You honestly believe that the government works for you? You believe the government has rights neither you nor I possess? Those are two ideas in much opposition to each other. You and I have no right to commit aggression against one another or to steal from one another. But... the government has the right to do just that. And... you believe it so because you support government and fathom no world without its existence. If you believe that no one has the right to violate you or to steal from you, why do you believe the government (that mysterious entity) has that right? And, if as you say, the government works for you, why would someone "working for you" have that right? It makes no sense and yet most all of us BELIEVE that. You believe that by voting this one or that one in or out of office, you somehow "control" what government is and does... one politician of this ilk or that replacing another of a different ilk. If this is government "working for you," it may very well be government NOT "working for someone else." And when government doesn't "work for you," do you have the right to commit violence against it or steal from it? Well, no, of course you don't... that is reserved for government only. Only government has the "authority" and "corner" on violence and theft... and we BELIEVE it and that's what makes it so.

Roads, fire departments, taking care of the less fortunate, etc., etc. That's not government and doesn't need to be. Voluntary cooperation would take care of all of that and do it much more efficiently and less costly than the government does it. Got a question for you... where do you get your groceries? Asking the question "who will build and maintain the roads," if it is not government, is like asking "where will I get food," if not for the government. We have a voluntary system in place that works very well that gets food to your table over which the government has little if any participation. People need to eat and there are many privateers out there who are more than glad to provide the food. You get to shop around where and when you like and decide for yourself to buy or not to buy. Visit any supermarket and that's self evident. Who stands around wringing their hands and lamenting that if it weren't for the government that we wouldn't be able to feed the population. The Roads argument is exactly the same. People need roads to get from A to B to C, etc., etc. and there would be roads without a government. And, when is the last time you saw a congressman or senator out building roads?... the government doesn't build roads... they take your taxes (steal from you with violence or the threat of violence) and through mismanagement and corruption eat up a lot of those taxes and with what may be left - 10% or so, they hire someone to build the roads. What an efficient system, huh? NOT !!!

You can continue in what I believe is the superstition of government and believe you are in control by casting a ballot... but what are YOU in control of? As long as you believe that the government has "authority" over you, you are in control of nothing... not even your mind.

 

[The Big Guy]

I too am not attempting confrontation... simply discussion and understanding.

You honestly believe that the government works for you? You believe the government has rights neither you nor I possess? Those are two ideas in much opposition to each other. You and I have no right to commit aggression against one another or to steal from one another. But... the government has the right to do just that. And... you believe it so because you support government and fathom no world without its existence. If you believe that no one has the right to violate you or to steal from you, why do you believe the government (that mysterious entity) has that right? And, if as you say, the government works for you, why would someone "working for you" have that right? It makes no sense and yet most all of us BELIEVE that. You believe that by voting this one or that one in or out of office, you somehow "control" what government is and does... one politician of this ilk or that replacing another of a different ilk. If this is government "working for you," it may very well be government NOT "working for someone else." And when government doesn't "work for you," do you have the right to commit violence against it or steal from it? Well, no, of course you don't... that is reserved for government only. Only government has the "authority" and "corner" on violence and theft... and we BELIEVE it and that's what makes it so.

Roads, fire departments, taking care of the less fortunate, etc., etc. That's not government and doesn't need to be. Voluntary cooperation would take care of all of that and do it much more efficiently and less costly than the government does it. Got a question for you... where do you get your groceries? Asking the question "who will build and maintain the roads," if it is not government, is like asking "where will I get food," if not for the government. We have a voluntary system in place that works very well that gets food to your table over which the government has little if any participation. People need to eat and there are many privateers out there who are more than glad to provide the food. You get to shop around where and when you like and decide for yourself to buy or not to buy. Visit any supermarket and that's self evident. Who stands around wringing their hands and lamenting that if it weren't for the government that we wouldn't be able to feed the population. The Roads argument is exactly the same. People need roads to get from A to B to C, etc., etc. and there would be roads without a government. And, when is the last time you saw a congressman or senator out building roads?... the government doesn't build roads... they take your taxes (steal from you with violence or the threat of violence) and through mismanagement and corruption eat up a lot of those taxes and with what may be left - 10% or so, they hire someone to build the roads. What an efficient system, huh? NOT !!!

You can continue in what I believe is the superstition of government and believe you are in control by casting a ballot... but what are YOU in control of? As long as you believe that the government has "authority" over you, you are in control of nothing... not even your mind.

Wow! Did I really say all that? If you ever described me in that regard those that know me would not know who you were talking about.

Have you ever seen a group of people completely cooperate, 100% of the time? That's what it would take to be completely government free. If there was a problem or a need and all were expected to solve or fill it, and by negotiation and compromise amongst themselves they arrive at a solution that all are expected by the many to go along with, then what you have my friend is still a government.

Do you think that big corporations are not a form of government? They are.

Would you trust private enterprise to operate a private road to your benefit? Would you trust unrestrained private enterprise to deliver your water? If you think the government is not involved in food production and transportation, you aren't paying attention. I don't like unrestrained private enterprise any more than I like unrestrained government.

And no, I don't think the government is working for me and I want to re-establish it under the Constitution which I do wholeheartedly believe in. Not because it is perfect, but because it is the best absolute compromise.

If there was no government at all I would have to trust you and all fellow humans to work in my best interest. Can I do that?

Time to end this OT discussion.

TBG

 

[usmcmustang]

Wow! Did I really say all that? If you ever described me in that regard those that know me would not know who you were talking about.

Have you ever seen a group of people completely cooperate, 100% of the time? That's what it would take to be completely government free. If there was a problem or a need and all were expected to solve or fill it, and by negotiation and compromise amongst themselves they arrive at a solution that all are expected by the many to go along with, then what you have my friend is still a government.

Do you think that big corporations are not a form of government? They are.

Would you trust private enterprise to operate a private road to your benefit? Would you trust unrestrained private enterprise to deliver your water? If you think the government is not involved in food production and transportation, you aren't paying attention. I don't like unrestrained private enterprise any more than I like unrestrained government.

And no, I don't think the government is working for me and I want to re-establish it under the Constitution which I do wholeheartedly believe it. Not because it is perfect, but because it is the best absolute compromise.

If there was no government at all I would have to trust you and all fellow humans to work in my best interest. Can I do that?

Time to end this OT discussion.

TBG

I agree, this discussion may very well have run its course.

On last point, you believe government is just a means to organize and get things done... at least that's what I am hearing. I believe government is that... but more than that. It is at times organized and at times does get things done, but always with a gun, i.e., with violence. If one doesn't do or not do what government says (it's laws - scribbles on paper) then it enforces those laws with violence. That's what makes governments NOT like corporations. In that regard, I'm not believing you have a firm grip on what government IS. Government is unlike anything you believe it to be if you equate it to a corporation or any other organization. Government is the only "organization" which we, its subjects believe (the superstition thing), has a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce its "laws." That's what sets government above? any other form of organization one can imagine. And that's an evil distinction. I am of the persuasion to believe you and I are NOT talking about the same thing... which really makes discussion difficult. I apologize for my lack of ability to find the words that might get us on the same plain.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

I have done this. I was and still am, very good at it. I have killed. I have never murdered. Military Service seems to be an embarrassment for you. You carry a pistol the way the USA carries a Military, for defense. It is not the role of the Soldier to set national policy, they carry it out. It is the government that sets foriegn policy, it is the government that YOU elect that send Soldiers to do things that you find distastfull. I follow LAWFUL orders, I am not an automaton that does not know what is "right" from what is "wrong". I do not kill indiscriminately. I am the one that is standing at Freedoms Gate, the Soldier that keeps the bad guys from US soil. When you wake up in the middle of the night, remember there is a Soldier out there guarding your shores and your precious Freedom. You bad mouth the "tool" not who wields it.

I do not carry a pistol like the u.s. carries its military, When I carry a pistol: 1. It is for self defense only. 2. I do not go out of my way to search and destroy bad guys, I deem a potential threat. 3. The only lawful order my trigger finger responds to comes from my brain.

I do not elect any govt. or supposed official thereof, To think we have a say in the rules applied on us, is a joke, Harry Reid does not represent me when he passes a bill, any more than he represents me when he pilfers money, or violates his oath to the constitution.

For the record I find all violence distasteful. The type you propagate is particularly wretched. You do not defend me, or my family. You defend imaginary and ever changing lines on a map, (Gang turf.) You do not defend my ideals, freedom, or anything that interests me. What you defend is the enemy of my freedom. You enforce for the thugs who force me to pay for others welfare checks, while instead I could be helping my mom. You enforce for those that to take my freedom to choose my own medical plan away. You enforce for those who tell me when, and where I can, and cannot defend my life. You enforce for those who would invade my home and shoot my dog if they thought I was growing a certain leaf.

You admit you follow "lawful" orders. And if you don't you go to the brig. So you agree that you have no freedom to choose your mission, but you can acquire freedom for me?

I only ask for one explanation out of your whole declaration above. Where do these people who give you lawful orders get their authority from?