National service bill (UK)

[Dr Kynes]

You didn't watch the video did you? Well, did you? Can you show me a copy of this "social contract" ? Of course not. Is this "contract" enforceable in a court? No.

I'm not a pacifist, if attacked I'll respond with defensive force.

However I don't view things from a collectivist point of view the way you have presented your view point. I try to see people as individuals not automatically as "the enemy" because some douchebag has declared it to be so. I don't make excuses for collateral damage or accept legal yet immoral excuses to invade innocent peoples lives.

so, war is always avoidable, we should NEVER go on the offense even against those who have taken some of our territory, and we should sue for peace at every opportunity.

is that what you are arguing?

when an crackhead moves into your garage, you just cede him that territory, because you dont want to be "the aggressor" and hope he has no designs on your kitchen and bathroom?

or do you only cede the portion of the garage your wife parks in, because she has no "social contract" with you, and thus you cannot be expected to resist the crackhead on her behalf?

yep. pretty sound thinking.

your delusional refusal to accept that we live in a nation, and every person, every town, every county every state is sworn to defend every other from the predations of outsiders is impossible to justify.

if canada (because any other theoretical invading force would be construed as RACISM of course) invaded new york vermont and maine would you expect everybody in america to shrug and say aww shucks, but we cant take it back, there might be Collateral Damage, and somebody who is not a canadian soldier might get hurt?

collateral damage is not new, even lobbing catapult stones over a city's walls could crush a chicken which would have been part of the booty after the siege was successful. collateral damage is unavoidable, and pretending thats why you take your position is retarded.

the truth is, you cannot be bothered to shift your ass one millimeter for anybody else unless you see a percentage in it for yourself.
if you would simply admit that you are a Nietzschean, we could all move on.

 

[Rob Roy]

so, war is always avoidable, we should NEVER go on the offense even against those who have taken some of our territory, and we should sue for peace at every opportunity.

is that what you are arguing?

when an crackhead moves into your garage, you just cede him that territory, because you dont want to be "the aggressor" and hope he has no designs on your kitchen and bathroom?

or do you only cede the portion of the garage your wife parks in, because she has no "social contract" with you, and thus you cannot be expected to resist the crackhead on her behalf?

yep. pretty sound thinking.

your delusional refusal to accept that we live in a nation, and every person, every town, every county every state is sworn to defend every other from the predations of outsiders is impossible to justify.

if canada (because any other theoretical invading force would be construed as RACISM of course) invaded new york vermont and maine would you expect everybody in america to shrug and say aww shucks, but we cant take it back, there might be Collateral Damage, and somebody who is not a canadian soldier might get hurt?

collateral damage is not new, even lobbing catapult stones over a city's walls could crush a chicken which would have been part of the booty after the siege was successful. collateral damage is unavoidable, and pretending thats why you take your position is retarded.

the truth is, you cannot be bothered to shift your ass one millimeter for anybody else unless you see a percentage in it for yourself.
if you would simply admit that you are a Nietzschean, we could all move on.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. Did you watch the video or was it too hard for you to digest?

As far as helping others, you're off base there too. I help others alot. So I'd appreciate it if you stop making shit up.

If Canada attacks, that wouldn't be all the people in Canada would it? It would mean some assholes that think they speak for everybody have incited a war. Why are you so obedient to this nonsense?

Are you saying that collateral damage has been around so long that it's okay? Why is that? Isn't it wrong to kill people that haven't harmed you?

You could simply declare victory with some insults and move on, since you obviously can't logically reason your way out of the concept that you support collectivist thought and violent actions, because some douchebag tells you to kill.


Crackheads in my garage might get a warm meal and a blanket or a boot up their ass, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. Did you watch the video or was it too hard for you to digest?

As far as helping others, you're off base there too. I help others alot. So I'd appreciate it if you stop making shit up.

If Canada attacks, that wouldn't be all the people in Canada would it? It would mean some assholes that think they speak for everybody have incited a war. Why are you so obedient to this nonsense?

Are you saying that collateral damage has been around so long that it's okay? Why is that? Isn't it wrong to kill people that haven't harmed you?

You could simply declare victory with some insults and move on, since you obviously can't logically reason your way out of the concept that you support collectivist thought and violent actions, because some douchebag tells you to kill.


Crackheads in my garage might get a warm meal and a blanket or a boot up their ass, depending on the circumstances.

no, i did not watch your silly vidya, i dont watch DNA Protection's, Bucky's AC's, or anybody's

if you cannot discuss your beliefs yourself, then you do not actually hold those beliefs, just like AC.

i suspect you actually do hold Neizschean beliefs, and theres nothing wrong with that, but those ideals are incompatible with society, except the kind found in bandit camps, pirate ships of old, and street gangs.

if you CHOOSE to do a thing, you do it for reasons of your own, your inability to accept that MAYBE the reasons for doing something might not be apparent to you, but they are obvious to others is a personal failing.

you may not see the percentage in defending a part of the nation which is not immediately vital to yourself, or you may have no interest in defending your neighbors when they are imperiled, but some of us do.

society may not always be immediately transactional, but thats why we dont let every jack-hole decide everything for himself.

dissent against a particular injustice, or a particular policy is HEALTHY.
outright rejection of everything in society which does not suit you, is simple egocentric monomania.

 

[Doer]

Every single tax payer is compelled by the force of the government to "serve the state".

Bullshit. We can leave. And that is a very rare freedom.

 

[Doer]

Except sometimes the Wolverines aren't really a danger. The "we're being attacked" lie is a common tool for tyrants.


[SIZE=+4]Hermann Goering's Quote
On War And The People[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
3-20-2[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials[/SIZE]

That is senseless. Because if the tribe says, stand to, you do. And if it turns out, this time, there are no attackers. You still stand to or die at the hands of your comrades for being a coward.

So you are being cowardly as you will not address the fact of the social contract. Defend the largess you profit from or we kill you.

And why quote the losers in this World? Do you really think Beau Geste, you can't be forced to fight?

 

[Rob Roy]

no, i did not watch your silly vidya, i dont watch DNA Protection's, Bucky's AC's, or anybody's

if you cannot discuss your beliefs yourself, then you do not actually hold those beliefs, just like AC.

i suspect you actually do hold Neizschean beliefs, and theres nothing wrong with that, but those ideals are incompatible with society, except the kind found in bandit camps, pirate ships of old, and street gangs.

if you CHOOSE to do a thing, you do it for reasons of your own, your inability to accept that MAYBE the reasons for doing something might not be apparent to you, but they are obvious to others is a personal failing.

you may not see the percentage in defending a part of the nation which is not immediately vital to yourself, or you may have no interest in defending your neighbors when they are imperiled, but some of us do.

society may not always be immediately transactional, but thats why we dont let every jack-hole decide everything for himself.

dissent against a particular injustice, or a particular policy is HEALTHY.
outright rejection of everything in society which does not suit you, is simple egocentric monomania.

You sure can use alot of words to avoid the question. Do you think it's okay to kill individuals that haven't harmed you? I bet you won't answer that one.

Who owns you? Are you so ingrained in the warfare / welfare mentality that you are incapable of deviating when your "leaders" tells you to kill ?

So "society" can tell you who you must kill? Aren't you capable of making up your own mind there? Shouldn't every "jackhole" own themself to the extent that they don't try to own others? Outright ACCEPTANCE of killing somebody that hasn't harmed you is intellectual sloth.

If every jackhole continues to unquestioningly kill others, when told to, that have never harmed them, what kind of world would that be? You are defending THAT?!


Your last line is supposed to mean what? I don't outright reject everything. I REJECT SENSELESS VIOLENCE. You, on the other hand, seem to endorse it, because some stranger that calls himself your leader tells you to go kill somebody you've never met or have reason to kill. Why does doing that make sense to you? Are you incapable of making up your own mind?

I never said anything about defending neighbors or not, why are you trying conflate things?

 

[Rob Roy]

That is senseless. Because if the tribe says, stand to, you do. And if it turns out, this time, there are no attackers. You still stand to or die at the hands of your comrades for being a coward.

So you are being cowardly as you will not address the fact of the social contract. Defend the largess you profit from or we kill you.

And why quote the losers in this World? Do you really think Beau Geste, you can't be forced to fight?

Mr. Dangerous Arm Wrestling not a coward guy,

The quote has more to do with blind obedience to a bad idea (that would be you) and how people are easily manipulated.

Of course I'd fight, IF there were an actual threat to me by an individual. However, most people I've never met are not threatened by me, nor I by them. They simply want to be left alone, so why not do that?

Why are you such a tool of the people that make you go kill for them? If the "tribe" is a collection of people in a central planning city far away that want to use you for cannon fodder to protect their financial interests you'd seriously go and kill people for them? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself, that seems sort of herd like, cowardly even.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You sure can use alot of words to avoid the question. Do you think it's okay to kill individuals that haven't harmed you? I bet you won't answer that one.

i think it is perfectly acceptable for me to kill anyone who is waving a gun and shouting about how they will kill me. EVEN IF THEY HAVENT SHOT ME YET!

Who owns you? Are you so ingrained in the warfare / welfare mentality that you are incapable of deviating when your "leaders" tells you to kill ?

If i trust the leader who tells me, "shoot that motherfucker", i will shoot that motherfucker. if obama tells me to "shoot that motherfucker", obama better back the fuck up and shut his pie hole.

So "society" can tell you who you must kill?

Yes.

Aren't you capable of making up your own mind there?

certainly i am, but if i have no reason to doubt the orders are valid, i will drop that hammer.

Shouldn't every "jackhole" own themself to the extent that they don't try to own others?

Not Every Jackhole is trustworthy enough to be left to his own devices, See Somalia for more information.

Outright ACCEPTANCE of killing somebody that hasn't harmed you is intellectual sloth.

Nope. that statement is Intellectual Retardation.
Just because some asshole hasnt harmed ME PERSONALLY, doesnt mean i should sit back and contemplaye my navel while he proceeds to murder my sister, rob my neighbor, rape the chick at the 7-11, or light your house on fire.
Defense of society does not require me to suffer PERSONAL harm before i load up my guns and do some shootin.

If every jackhole continues to unquestioningly kill others, when told to, that have never harmed them, what kind of world would that be?

if we have no laws, no social structure and no way to enforce that structure then EVERY ASSHOLE WHO SO DESIRES, WILL KILL ANYONE THEY PLEASE.

You are defending THAT?!

that is the kind of world you are proposing.


Your last line is supposed to mean what?

that your tiresome "Youre Not The Boss Of Me" rants come off as petulant teenage angst, and you spend a shitload of time thinking about how free YOU should be, without contemplating how that level of unbridled freedom (anarchy) can, and DOES create nightmare scenarios like somalia for those unable to defend themselves from the Anarcho-Shoot-You-In-The-Face-For-A-Laugh-ists

I don't outright reject everything.

really? i cant think of a single facet of society that you have not rejected as "statist"

I REJECT SENSELESS VIOLENCE. You, on the other hand, seem to endorse it, because some stranger that calls himself your leader tells you to go kill somebody you've never met or have reason to kill.

ORLY? when did i sign up for the gestapo? Even the USMC (the service i tried to join BTW, but my knee kept me out) doesnt simply point a guy out there and say kill everybody. those orders are ILLEGAL (ZOMG!! MOAR RULES!! O NOES!!) and it is the DUTY of the soldier airman or marine to disobey.

Why does doing that make sense to you?

because sometimes you have to trust somebody other than yourself, or you cannot be part of society.

Are you incapable of making up your own mind?

Nope. i make up my own mind all the time, including my conscious refusal to obey the unjust prohibition on weed, but i still accept, and respect the other laws that govern society, like, no murdering, no raping, no arson, no speeding, no throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls etc...

I never said anything about defending neighbors or not, why are you trying conflate things?

because thats what service in the armed forces is REALLY about.
taking up arms to defend OUR society against that which is OUTSIDE.
i am not Conflating, i am DISTILLING the issue to it's essence.
our navy, marine corps army coast guard and air force are intended to defend US, the people of the USA from those who would do us harm, even if our politicians fuck it up fairly regularly.

why is THAT concept so dificult for you to grasp?

 

[Rob Roy]

because thats what service in the armed forces is REALLY about.
taking up arms to defend OUR society against that which is OUTSIDE.
i am not Conflating, i am DISTILLING the issue to it's essence.
our navy, marine corps army coast guard and air force are intended to defend US, the people of the USA from those who would do us harm, even if our politicians fuck it up fairly regularly.

why is THAT concept so dificult for you to grasp?

Sorry to hear that you would shoot somebody that your "leader" tells you to and that personally hasn't harmed you. If you missed the alleged bad guy and shot an innocent person would you have committed murder? Would you bayonet the babies too, if your leader told you to?

As far as society and rejecting parts of it, you're right I do reject senseless violence and coercive policies.

How does forcing somebody to kill people they don't even know advance freedom? It certainly doesn't seem to advance the freedom of the person being forced does it?

I never said anything about there being no laws. Shouldn't the most important "law" be that people are free to do as they wish as long as they don't harm others? Do you disagree with that?

 

[Rob Roy]

Bullshit. We can leave. And that is a very rare freedom.

Isn't a "hall pass" required to be able to travel? How is requiring permission consistent with your ...ahem... "rare freedom"?



Freedom implies that a person could STAY and not be subject to confiscatory and aggressive behavior by the parasite class.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Isn't a "hall pass" required to be able to travel? How is requiring permission consistent with your ...ahem... "rare freedom"?



Freedom implies that a person could STAY and not be subject to confiscatory and aggressive behavior by the parasite class.

You do not need a passport to leave your country, however it's advised to have one to gain entry of another country

You still bitching about paying for the shit you use?

 

[Rob Roy]

You do not need a passport to leave your country, however it's advised to have one to gain entry of another country

You still bitching about paying for the shit you use?

You do need an internal passport to travel within the country and one to get back to the "land of the free".

No, I'm bitching about something called "national service" and forced conscription and how it is Orwellian. You can't protect freedom by taking it away can you?

As far as paying for what I use, how do you propose unbundling the "goods and services" from the "bads and disservices" that government provides? In other words, people end up paying for things like bombs and jails for victimless "criminals" even though they wish they weren't coerced into it. How would you change that?

 

[ginjawarrior]

You do need an internal passport to travel within the country and one to get back to the "land of the free".

Passport needed to travel within the country? Love to see a cite on that

Why would you want to go back thought you wanted to escape the chain

No, I'm bitching about something called "national service" and forced conscription and how it is Orwellian. You can't protect freedom by taking it away can you?

As far as paying for what I use, how do you propose unbundling the "goods and services" from the "bads and disservices" that government provides? In other words, people end up paying for things like bombs and jails for victimless "criminals" even though they wish they weren't coerced into it. How would you change that?

Don't want to support the bad practices? Leave

Even if you shirk your tax payments every dollar you spend is a dollar upholding your countries economy and as such supporting all those bad things you listed

Now of course you'd have to really care about those things rather than using them as a scapegoat for just not wanting to pay tax

 

[Rob Roy]

Passport needed to travel within the country? Love to see a cite on that

Excuse my poetic license....by the way isn't a drivers license a form of an internal passport?

Why would you want to go back thought you wanted to escape the chain

I separate the imposed government from the land masses they control. In other words it's possible to occupy a physical space, without endorsing the policies of the people that try to rule over it thru aggressive means. Plus, I'm sort of a fan of people like Harriet Tubman and I want to help free other slaves. By the way aren't you supposed to be in the field picking cotton now?


Don't want to support the bad practices? Leave

That's an asinine excuse and is the SAME kind of rationalization that a rapist could posit to a victim.

Even if you shirk your tax payments every dollar you spend is a dollar upholding your countries economy and as such supporting all those bad things you listed

First of all imposed tax payments aren't "mine", they would more correctly be termed "theirs" since they are imposed rather than derived thru actual consent.

Now of course you'd have to really care about those things rather than using them as a scapegoat for just not wanting to pay tax

And you'd have to be a fool to think you are free when your own money is used to forge the chains that bind you and are used to buy bombs to kill babies.

 

[ginjawarrior]

And you'd have to be a fool to think you are free when your own money is used to forge the chains that bind you and are used to buy bombs to kill babies.

Every dollar you spend in your country is a dollar that holds your countries economy up. You could pay ZERO tax and still be supporting the war machine

Your just as guilty of bombing babies as your tax paying neighbour except he's more honest about it

And about your rapist remark you are tacitly supporting the aggressor by staying


Delusions of grandeur/ over inflated self importance comparing yourself to Tubman?

 

[Rob Roy]

Every dollar you spend in your country is a dollar that holds your countries economy up. You could pay ZERO tax and still be supporting the war machine

Your just as guilty of bombing babies as your tax paying neighbour except he's more honest about it

And about your rapist remark you are tacitly supporting the aggressor by staying


Delusions of grandeur/ over inflated self importance comparing yourself to Tubman?

Attacking me doesn't really do much to advance your position, does it? We need more Harriet Tubmans that's for sure.

So what do you propose be done to unbind the good from the bad?

 

[Doer]

Isn't a "hall pass" required to be able to travel? How is requiring permission consistent with your ...ahem... "rare freedom"?



Freedom implies that a person could STAY and not be subject to confiscatory and aggressive behavior by the parasite class.

Freedom to you is not the subject. You are the middle of the best freedom the world has seen and you whine.

People walk in and of here daily without a pass.

The reason you stay is everywhere else is much worse, more racism, less freedom, and everywhere you still need the pass.

 

[Doer]

And you'd have to be a fool to think you are free when your own money is used to forge the chains that bind you and are used to buy bombs to kill babies.

These are mental chain that bind you.

Not us. YOU. I am as free as bird. I can fly a helicopter. Where else in the world but a few places like AUS, can you even have a light plane much less a civilian helicopter.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Sorry to hear that you would shoot somebody that your "leader" tells you to and that personally hasn't harmed you.
reductio ad absurdum

If you missed the alleged bad guy and shot an innocent person would you have committed murder?

Nope that would be collateral damage. it happens all the time, and in a war, it is NOT murder. people who hang out in places where people are shooting should keep their heads down.

Would you bayonet the babies too, if your leader told you to?

reductio ad retardum

As far as society and rejecting parts of it, you're right I do reject senseless violence and coercive policies.

all violence is senseless, all policies are coercive, and of course, "You're Not The Boss Of Me!" repetition disguised as a political ideal, when in fact is just a tantrum.

if you hate being "coerced" so much, then by all means, Bir Tawil awaits, you can form your own "Perfect Anarcho-Society" there. im sure there will be absolutely no "coercion", and im certain it will not end in tears.

How does forcing somebody to kill people they don't even know advance freedom?

killin redcoats seems to have been highlt effective throughout the world, killin napoleon's blue coats did a bang up job in europe, killin german soldiers in 2 world wars didnt advance freedom MUCH, but it did keep the Hus busy while a more permanent solution was sought, etc etc etc.

It certainly doesn't seem to advance the freedom of the person being forced does it?

is this a question of a statement? ah yes, NEITHER is is a rhetorical handjob.

I never said anything about there being no laws.

no, you just espouse the elimination of any form of enforcement

Shouldn't the most important "law" be that people are free to do as they wish as long as they don't harm others?

No. that would result in every asshole doing whatever he pleases, and saying the other guy just got in the way of his playfully discharged bullets, then the victim's wallet FELL into the perp's pocket.

Do you disagree with that?

yes, i disagree with most every one of your utopian anarcho-imaginary assertions

 

[Rob Roy]

Freedom to you is not the subject. You are the middle of the best freedom the world has seen and you whine.

People walk in and of here daily without a pass.

The reason you stay is everywhere else is much worse, more racism, less freedom, and everywhere you still need the pass.

Freedom IS the subject, blindman. You think a few crumbs equals freedom?

People walk in and out of here and don't give their real names do they? Why is that? Is it because the USA is free ? I don't think so.

Comparing he USA's kind of totalitarian government to others and saying how much better it is, doesn't mean that the USA is free. Saying that this is the best that ever was doesn't mean it's free here either or that it is the best that can be.