Want to change the government?

To change government requires only one thing. The determination to not pay them taxes. You do that and you have them by the balls.
 
NoDrama said:
To change government requires only one thing. The determination to not pay them taxes. You do that and you have them by the balls.
Click to expand...

Then mass confiscation occurs, as history is the judge. Mass wealth re-distribution on a favoritism basis and the means of Production ownership is reset, and the labor proceeds with many loans and write-offs.
 
cannabineer said:
I disagree. The bailiwick, ambit, purview of the police is 1) to solve crimes and 2) to apprehend criminal suspects.
The expansion of police into a security force is a fairly recent phenomenon and one toward which I cast a distinctly jaundiced eye.

We the people should express our disgust and dissent with the police styling themselves Your Total Security Solution™. They are and remain civilians. My opinion.
Click to expand...

The solving of crimes and apprehending criminals is enforcement.
 
ChesusRice said:
I have tuberculosis and It is my right not to get treated and spread my disease
Click to expand...

No. You've combined two things into one. It is your right to decide how, when or if you are treated. It is not your right to knowingly infect others or enter their property if they chose to preclude you from doing so. However if others are concerned about infection they should always have the option of taking any pre-emptive measures with their own body and own property to facilitate this.

Tuberculosis huh? I would have figured you for a mental disturbance disorder or rubber fetish, but tuberculosis wow, sorry to hear that. So I didn't know you could contract tuberculosis from fucking blowup dolls, live and learn.
 
ChesusRice said:
I'm totally sick of the goverment telling my uncle he cannot dam the river that runs thru his property
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, they'll drone him and confiscate his property regardless of whether he has committed a harm to another person or that persons property. Ever since they licensed fire
and the wheel, they've been trying to own riparian rights.
 
lol they dont stand a chance.
not for any interior flaw, but contemporary government would not do well with successful libertarian societies existing imo
 
ChesusRice said:
Antartica
Switzerland
Iceland
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden

Now you
Click to expand...


Antarctica.

Are you one of those people that wants to make others choices for them or one of those happy to let others make their choices for them? How is either of those options peaceful?
 
Rob Roy said:
Antarctica.

Are you one of those people that wants to make others choices for them or one of those happy to let others make their choices for them? How is either of those options peaceful?
Click to expand...
Who have they attacked

Now that you have avoided the question
I will ask it again. Since I feel you owe me.

name one sucessful libertarian society that ever existed in history
 
ChesusRice said:
Who have they attacked

Now that you have avoided the question
I will ask it again. Since I feel you owe me.

name one sucessful libertarian society that ever existed in history
Click to expand...

Anytime you tell another person what they MUST do under threat of force if that person is minding his own business, you or the entity you are part of has "initiated aggression" or attacked a peaceful person. All coercive governments use a variation of this same universal theme.

Perhaps some people are ALREADY living in a successful liberatarian society but hide it for fear of being attacked by your champions. As far as whether a thing has happened or not, that doesn't prove it can't happen or when / if it does it will not be an improvement over the status quo.

If coercive government has such good ideas why must people be forced to do them? Sounds a bit slavish to me.

So, are you the kind of person that likes to make others choices for them? What does that say about you?
 
Rob Roy said:
Anytime you tell another person what they MUST do under threat of force if that person is minding his own business, you or the entity you are part of has "initiated aggression" or attacked a peaceful person. All coercive governments use a variation of this same universal theme.

Perhaps some people are ALREADY living in a successful liberatarian society but hide it for fear of being attacked by your champions. As far as whether a thing has happened or not, that doesn't prove it can't happen or when / if it does it will not be an improvement over the status quo.

If coercive government has such good ideas why must people be forced to do them? Sounds a bit slavish to me.

So, are you the kind of person that likes to make others choices for them? What does that say about you?
Click to expand...

So you have
no answers
No response
and you avoid the question.

Leaves me with the opinion you are a worthless slacker looking for any rationalization to make your worthless life seem admirable.
You dont like the social contract here nothing is stopping you from leaving

Now go forth and be happy

Someplace else
 
ChesusRice said:
So you have
no answers
No response
and you avoid the question.

Leaves me with the opinion you are a worthless slacker looking for any rationalization to make your worthless life seem admirable.
You dont like the social contract here nothing is stopping you from leaving

Now go forth and be happy

Someplace else
Click to expand...

Can you show me a copy of the "social contract" ? Who specifically agreed to it?

I think I answered your questions. Which ones would you like clarification on?


Also, I've asked you twice nicely, if you are the kind of person that want to tell others what to do or the kind that wants to be told what to do?
 
ChesusRice said:
It's his land. Why cant they just leave him alone
Click to expand...

I am not arguing, but for the sake of discussion the collateral impact affects others and that you cannot just ignore. I believe in the right to your body, your safety, and property.....if a guy built a dam upstream and ruined a water supply for my farm, the govt would be the least of his issues.....he would be fertilizer. You cannot be reckless in the name of property that is only yours in liquid form as it temporarily flows through property. What if a dam was built upstream from him? You would want intervention...I am just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top