Please convince me of statism!

[green73]

It's not about having to dumb it down. It's more about the impossibility of breaking through a wall of indoctrination 50+ years thick.

 

[Travlyr]

It's not about having to dumb it down. It's more about the impossibility of breaking through a wall of indoctrination 50+ years thick.

Again, attacking the messenger rather than the message. Did you read my post?

 

[CCTelander]

You think I am a coward eh? Will you say that to my face? Or do you just want to be a big boy on the Internet? I'll meet you anytime anywhere.

This constitutes a veiled threat of physical violence. Men of peace and good will do not resort to this kind of behavior over something as trivial as a few cross words posted on an internet message forum. Ergo, the person acting like this clearly cannot be a man of peace and good will.

 

[Travlyr]

This constitutes a veiled threat of physical violence. Men of peace and good will do not resort to this kind of behavior over something as trivial as a few cross words posted on an internet message forum. Ergo, the person acting like this clearly cannot be a man of peace and good will.

Chris, did you even bother to do your own homework? Did you read my post? If not, then do because others are reading it. If you want to get me banned from the world, then fine. Meet me and kill me. Outside of that, I'm going to be a thorn in the side of anarchy.

 

[steph3n]

Chris, did you even bother to do your own homework? Did you read my post? If not, then do because others are reading it. If you want to get me banned from the world, then fine. Meet me and kill me. Outside of that, I'm going to be a thorn in the side of anarchy.

Sounds more like a thorn in your own side....need me to supply you some sterile equipment to remove it?

 

[Travlyr]

Sounds more like a thorn in your own side....need me to supply you some sterile equipment to remove it?

The only way to remove me is to kill me. That's it. I will not stop otherwise. Freedom for my children and grandchildren are too important.

 

[CCTelander]

Chris, did you even bother to do your own homework? Did you read my post? If not, then do because others are reading it. If you want to get me banned from the world, then fine. Meet me and kill me. Outside of that, I'm going to be a thorn in the side of anarchy.

Sorry Trav but you must be confusing me with someone else, Perhaps yourself or your buddy Rev9. You two are, after all, the ones who have repeatedly threatened others with physical violence, both here and over on RevBox. I don't want to "kill" anyone, and, in fact, find it quite odd that you'd even suggest such a thing. I'm really quite at a loss as to where such a thought even came from.

 

[Travlyr]

Sorry Trav but you must be confusing me with someone else, Perhaps yourself or your buddy Rev9. You two are, after all, the ones who have repeatedly threatened others with physical violence, both here and over on RevBox. I don't want to "kill" anyone, and, in fact, find it quite odd that you'd even suggest such a thing. I'm really quite at a loss as to where such a thought even came from.

That's because you are are patsy. Grow some balls.

 

[CCTelander]

That's because you are are patsy. Grow some balls.

So, you're saying that because I lack the desire to kill someone whom I've never met, and who has not aggressed aginst me, that I need to "[ g]row some balls"?

Interesting.

 

[Travlyr]

So, you're saying that because I lack the desire to kill someone whom I've never met, and who has not aggressed aginst me, that I need to "[ g]row some balls"?

Interesting.

No, Not at all. I am making the claim that you are an inferior human being based on your inability to do proper research. You can't do it or you won't do it. Whatever.

 

[Lowkey]

So many An-Caps.

 

[CCTelander]

So many An-Caps.

"[It's] catching on, I'm tellin' you!"

 

[A Son of Liberty]

LOL Travlyr considers anarchists to be the great threat to his and his children's and grandchildren's liberty. His leviathan is collapsing right on top of him, and he considers the people who warn him of staying away from the state to be his enemy! !

Either your constitution gives sanction to the state we suffer under, Travlyr, or IT IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT.

It's time to grow up and realize that the path to true human freedom lies in demolishing the illogical, immoral concept of the state in the minds of your fellow men.

 

[CCTelander]

LOL Travlyr considers anarchists to be the great threat to his and his children's and grandchildren's liberty. His leviathan is collapsing right on top of him, and he considers the people who warn him of staying away from the state to be his enemy! !

Either your constitution gives sanction to the state we suffer under, Travlyr, or IT IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT.

It's time to grow up and realize that the path to true human freedom lies in demolishing the illogical, immoral concept of the state in the minds of your fellow men.

Exactly.

The people who are willing to actually pledge NOT to aggress against him, and who are willing to accept his word, if he were only willing to give it, that he will behave likewise, WITHOUT some third psrty holding guns to everyone's heads he considers his enemies.

The people who will not interact with him in any significant way unless they have that third party holding a gun to his head, these he considers friends.

Thix is logical in Trav's Bizzaro World reality.

Go figure.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CCTelander again.

//

 

[A Son of Liberty]

In what way? The constitution does not allow for standing armies, or fiat money, or Superior Court judicial review. So, in what way?

In the way that we actually have a standing army. So as I said, the constitution either sanctions the government we suffer under, or it IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT. It IS powerless to stop it, by direct observation - we have a standing army. The Constitution does not prevent the U.S. government from maintaining a standing army. How do I know this? Because the U.S. government maintains a standing army. It also cannot prevent the U.S. government from issuing a fiat currency. How do I know this? Because the U.S. government has granted the Federal Reserve to issue a fiat currency. While it is true that the constitution says that the U.S. government cannot maintain a standing army or issue a non-commodity currency, it does. So, AGAIN, it is POWERLESS to stop it. BY DIRECT OBSERVATION. The CONSTITUTION DOES NOT LIMIT GOVERNMENT. How do I know this? BECAUSE I HAVE EYES.

The only way you will ever "limit" government is to utterly destroy its legitimacy in the eyes of mankind. Once you allow that some men may have some measure of power over others, all discussion as to its extent is merely "haggling over the price", to paraphrase Shaw. You can either allow that the scope of government is open to interpretation (representative democracy), or you can impose a dictatorship over society, against which men will inevitably, rightly, rebel! It is not a question of how much government, but whether government at all. This is the only logical question. You have NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS. Government CANNOT be contained, as marvelously demonstrated RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S. under the constitution.

I'm not sure how many times or ways I can say this before it sinks into that thick skull of yours. You may make a utilitarian argument for the state, but you CANNOT MAKE A MORALLY AND LOGICALLY CONSISTENT case for it. IT CANNOT BE DONE. IT DOES NOT EXIST. Morality and logic are objective quantities. You cannot drive a square peg into a round hole.

Fin.

 

[erowe1]

What is the point of these debates?

They seem like a way for people to push away their most likely allies.

Here are two facts that I consider nearly impossible to reject:
1) We are never going to have no state.
2) We are never going to have a federal government that obeys the Constitution.

It's like arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What is the point of these debates?

They seem like a way for people to push away their most likely allies.

Here are two facts that I consider nearly impossible to reject:
1) We are never going to have no state.
2) We are never going to have a federal government that obeys the Constitution.

It's like arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.

Well, it's very unlikely, but I wouldn't rule out a collapse of the State due to utter mismanagement and various other factors. It's happened numerous times before. (I doubt anyone here will be alive when that happens, though)

 

[erowe1]

Well, it's very unlikely, but I wouldn't rule out a collapse of the State due to utter mismanagement and various other factors. It's happened numerous times before. (I doubt anyone here will be alive when that happens, though)

I can see a state collapsing. I just can't see it being replaced with statelessness. As I see it, wherever theft exists, the state exists, even if only a very small one.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I can see a state collapsing. I just can't see it being replaced with statelessness. As I see it, wherever theft exists, the state exists, even if only a very small one.

You have an interesting way of defining "State" which I've not seen before. May I ask how you arrived at this?