If you don't like the laws, move & you're consenting, entering a social contract

[Primus]

Hahahaha you are so hilarious, your posts are almost always fallacy ad hominem, straw men and red herring and you want to then cry about others are pointing out that your lack of even attempting to address something is either on purpose or not?

There is only so many times someone can try to lead the ass with a carrot.

This ass doesn't like carrots. My mother couldn't make me eat them nor can my wife.

I like whiskey though. Try tying that to a stick and hang it out in front of me. Would be better then the crap you've uses so far...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[marshaul]

"Governments bottom line is coercion".

Anything to back that up? Because at this point all I can say is I disagree. And then we are at an impasse.

Now you're just being obstinate.

The statement in question doesn't come with value attached (you add that on your own). It's simply states that the fundamental tool in government's toolbox is coercion. All this means is that everything government does is dependent on forcing people to act against their will.

Sometimes coercion can be acceptable - for instance, retaliatory coercion against murderers. What you're experiencing is the general dissatisfaction with initiatory coercion.

And - good or bad - everything government does, from the criminal laws it enforces (both just and unjust), to collecting taxes to pay for public services, is reliant on coercion, be it coercing criminals to go to jail, or coercing individuals to pay their taxes.

There's really not a lot of room for debate, there.

 

[Primus]

Now you're just being obstinate.

The statement in question doesn't come with value attached (you add that on your own). It's simply states that the fundamental tool in government's toolbox is coercion. All this means is that everything government does is dependent on forcing people to act against their will.

Sometimes coercion can be acceptable - for instance, retaliatory coercion against murderers. What you're experiencing is the general dissatisfaction with initiatory coercion.

And - good or bad - everything government does, from the criminal laws it enforces (both just and unjust), to collecting taxes to pay for public services, is reliant on coercion, be it coercing criminals to go to jail, or coercing individuals to pay their taxes.

There's really not a lot of room for debate, there.

Respectfully I disagree. I willingly pay taxes. No one coerces me. The closest anyone came to coercing me is when I made a mistake on my taxes and they sent a letter saying "hey dummy you put this so either show paper work or pay x dollars because it was inaccurate". In response I paid x dollars because I realized I did make a mistake on paperwork and owed money. No guns no swat teams no threats no jail.....

And I'm certain I'm not the only citizen that willingly participates in this country.

Your premise is akin to saying that Walmart and every other store coerces you to shop there because they offer the beat prices. You COULD shop somewhere but won't because it's cheaper. You COULD choose to make clothing, grow food, etc. But you don't because its easier to go to wal mart. So does the store coerce also?

I could leave and not pay taxes here. I won't because it'd be a PIA.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

I think I found the solution to our illegal immigration problem.

One of you just go on TV and explain to them that they WONT get free food stamps, free education, free health care, free phones, free housing just for showing up and making a baby here. Explain to them they are going to be coerced by the government to be slaves. That'll send them screaming back over the border.


In fact, go to your local city and go find the nearest housing projects. Tell them they are being coerced also. Show them the truth of how awful the services they receive are.

So back.to reality.... Does anyone else see the irony of literally millions streaming here illegally and some are here complaining they are forced to be here and how horrible it is?


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Respectfully I disagree. I willingly pay taxes. No one coerces me. The closest anyone came to coercing me is when I made a mistake on my taxes and they sent a letter saying "hey dummy you put this so either show paper work or pay x dollars because it was inaccurate". In response I paid x dollars because I realized I did make a mistake on paperwork and owed money. No guns no swat teams no threats no jail.....

And I'm certain I'm not the only citizen that willingly participates in this country.

Your premise is akin to saying that Walmart and every other store coerces you to shop there because they offer the beat prices. You COULD shop somewhere but won't because it's cheaper. You COULD choose to make clothing, grow food, etc. But you don't because its easier to go to wal mart. So does the store coerce also?

I could leave and not pay taxes here. I won't because it'd be a PIA.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You being willing to pay taxes doesn't remove any underlying coercion from the transaction. You, whether you are willing or not, are not given the choice to decided whether or not you pay taxes.

"Your premise is akin to saying that Walmart...." No it isn't. Not at all...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I think I found the solution to our illegal immigration problem.

One of you just go on TV and explain to them that they WONT get free food stamps, free education, free health care, free phones, free housing just for showing up and making a baby here. Explain to them they are going to be coerced by the government to be slaves. That'll send them screaming back over the border.


In fact, go to your local city and go find the nearest housing projects. Tell them they are being coerced also. Show them the truth of how awful the services they receive are.

So back.to reality.... Does anyone else see the irony of literally millions streaming here illegally and some are here complaining they are forced to be here and how horrible it is?


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Are you being serious? Your a police officer and you still don't get how utterly ridiculous what you're saying is? You should know better.

For instance, you refer to illegal immigration as a problem. Then you refer to several benefit programs run by our government which is funded by your tax money, and mention the fact that those problematic illegal immigrants may receive some or all of those benefits. So tell me Primus, why are you willingly paying your hard earned money to fund this problem? Perhaps the solution to this immigration problem is for them to actually NOT receive those benefits, and maybe the solution to accomplishing that is for you not to be made to pay for those benefits!

 

[Primus]

You being willing to pay taxes doesn't remove any underlying coercion from the transaction. You, whether you are willing or not, are not given the choice to decided whether or not you pay taxes.

"Your premise is akin to saying that Walmart...." No it isn't. Not at all...

I am give the choice..... To leave.

See the point?

If I worked and saved money to buy I ticket I could move to any country that would take me. Recind me citizenship and pay no taxes or ties to this country.

That would be a dumb choice.... But the opportunity is there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I am give the choice..... To leave.

See the point?

If I worked and saved money to buy I ticket I could move to any country that would take me. Recind me citizenship and pay no taxes or ties to this country.

That would be a dumb choice.... But the opportunity is there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This would be a straw man if you were being serious. You've completely redefined the parameters of the argument and question. What is being referred to as "the choice" is completely redefined in your post. Obviously the "choice" that I was referring to and the "choice" that you are referring to are two completely different things. Therefore, your [strike]claim[/strike] assertion or implication that my post, in which I claimed that you are not afforded the "choice," is incorrect because you have the "choice" that you've defined in your post is entirely false.

So, I don't think you can possibly be serious.

Unfortunately, no, I do not see any point.

Edit: Have you watched the video yet?

 

[marshaul]

Respectfully I disagree. I willingly pay taxes. No one coerces me. The closest anyone came to coercing me is when I made a mistake on my taxes and they sent a letter saying "hey dummy you put this so either show paper work or pay x dollars because it was inaccurate". In response I paid x dollars because I realized I did make a mistake on paperwork and owed money. No guns no swat teams no threats no jail.....

And I'm certain I'm not the only citizen that willingly participates in this country.

Your premise is akin to saying that Walmart and every other store coerces you to shop there because they offer the beat prices. You COULD shop somewhere but won't because it's cheaper. You COULD choose to make clothing, grow food, etc. But you don't because its easier to go to wal mart. So does the store coerce also?

I could leave and not pay taxes here. I won't because it'd be a PIA.

Your logic is identical to "mass rape is impossible because some victims might consent", and I reject it on its face.

 

[countryclubjoe]

"Governments bottom line is coercion".

Anything to back that up? Because at this point all I can say is I disagree. And then we are at an impasse.

I'll address the video soon. Been busy.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Try not paying your taxes, or not obtaining a license for certain activities, then you will see the coercion via fines, fees and threats of incarceration.

Primus, did you cheat on your civil service test?

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

For a much better understanding of "Social Contract Theories"

Read Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, theories on the subject.

Regards

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

The state, both in its genesis and by its primary intention,is purely anti-social. It is not based on the ideas of natural rights,but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those the state may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access,and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

... No different then being a shareholder of a large company. You own a piece and enjoy the benefits but you may not own enough to have a say in certain matters. Want more say? Buy more shares (run for office).

 

[OC for ME]

...anyway.

Taxes are Caesar's tribute being "voluntarily given" at the point of a sword.

Do not pay your fair share and the feds will, at some point, resort to violent physical force to get their due. The "state" will not bat an eye, shed one tear, for the toll their quest for their tribute will take upon a citizen who does not render unto Caesar.

Primus would gladly participate in the confiscation of said private property.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

...anyway.

Taxes are Caesar's tribute being "voluntarily given" at the point of a sword.

Do not pay your fair share and the feds will, at some point, resort to violent physical force to get their due. The "state" will not bat an eye, shed one tear, for the toll their quest for their tribute will take upon a citizen who does not render unto Caesar.

Primus would gladly participate in the confiscation of said private property.

+1

I work hard for my property, yet he is suggesting the only way I should leave if I don't like it stolen from me, and pretending that in itself isn't a form of coercion.

Is idiotic example of those who reap the benefits of the property being stolen from others and than trying to say it isn't coercion? Logic is not strong in this one.

He paying his taxes voluntarily when he makes his living off of money stolen from others is like a wiseguy happily paying a fee to the money they extort from a neighborhood.

It isn't even down to another revolution, but guess who's side he's on, might as well give him his redcoat now.

 

[Primus]

...anyway.

Taxes are Caesar's tribute being "voluntarily given" at the point of a sword.

Do not pay your fair share and the feds will, at some point, resort to violent physical force to get their due. The "state" will not bat an eye, shed one tear, for the toll their quest for their tribute will take upon a citizen who does not render unto Caesar.

Primus would gladly participate in the confiscation of said private property.

You can leave off with what I would "gladly" do. I know when you guys have nothing substantial to argue you just resort to the their person ad homen attacks but at least try to make a valid argument

Ceasar can't demand taxes unless you LIVE here.... That easy. So unless your argument is "casear keeps me here ta sword point THEN demands taxes......" It fails.

And save the "oh woe to me I was born here and can't afford to move....". Everyone can afford it one way or the other.

And the day you turn 18 (maybe earlier actually) and realize that the tax thing sucks but yet you STILL remain there and pay it.... Your consenting. The day you turn 18 and realize how crappy the gun laws are yet still stay there.... Consent.

This forum is riddled with "I left oppressive state for a free one.." Stories. How is that possible? How could they leave oppression for freedom if Caesar and his minions are stepping on everyone's throats?

Oh wait... Hes not. That's what we call being dramatic.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So Rosa Parks should just have gotten off the bus?

The state was instituted to protect private property and individual rights not rape them.

 

[OC for ME]

You can leave off with what I would "gladly" do. I know when you guys have nothing substantial to argue you just resort to the their person ad homen attacks but at least try to make a valid argument

Ceasar can't demand taxes unless you LIVE here.... That easy. So unless your argument is "casear keeps me here ta sword point THEN demands taxes......" It fails.

...

You have posted in another thread that if you were to witness a fellow cop violating the law, during the course of he "upholding the law," you would not intervene to stop the law breaking in progress as long as there was no threat, in your opinion, of the citizen being injured or killed. You stated that you would call a supervisor and stand back, not get involved. Therefore you would gladly inflict violent physical force upon a citizen who did not pay their "fair share" at the direction of the state, you would gladly do so because you remain employed as a cop.

If you disagree with violent physical force being employed by the state to collect their tribute then you cannot be employed by the state. This is a paradox that only a state enforcer can confront. In other words, if you don't like the law(s) then move. If you remain then you consent to, and condone, employing violent physical force upon a citizen for his "failure" to render unto Caesar.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

 

[MurrayRothbard]

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Being born into an area does not make you obligated to that government. This is a lie and when the premise is a lie the arguments for it is a lie.

The theft of property and liberty does not equate to the voluntary exchange of property with another property owner. Ever!

Because a group of people call themselves a government does not magically give them the power to rob and steal your property, any more than a single individual has that power. If we are the government, as some claim, then the onus is upon them to explain how the government magically gets a power the individual does not.

The state and its apologist will lie by saying we owe a debt to society or are somehow magically born into a social contract (when we all know a contract to be valid has to be voluntary on both parts), another lie to make this work is that they pretend we all own this land, we don't the foundation of the constitution and the DOI put that to a lie, even if we are the government that does not mean we own the land and have the right to ask others to give up their property or leave their country if they don't like the tyranny of the majority. (It is never a majority either, another lie of "democracy").

These same apologist will pretend they work for the people or they have fought for our liberties while two facedly then making arguments that if we don't like the lack of liberty imposed by them we are at liberty to leave. Hypocritical and dangerously wrong.

These redcoats who make their living off the backs of hard working people claiming that they voluntarily give up some of their money as a rationale for others who actually worked to increase the wealth of society and not take from it is so laughable to the point of absurdity.

They refuse to listen to logic and treat all others who don't worship at the alter of the state as heretics. Claim their religious adherence and faith as logic and pretend to be insulted when someone points out their hypocrisy and lack of mental reasoning.