May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:49 am

notorial dissent wrote:Pigpot, your questions as someone has previously pointed out are sophistry, or if you don’t like that they are open ended pointless nonsense showing a basic intellectual dishonesty.

I was going to say something snarky, but you then answered the question by posting your real premi, which are equally intellectually dishonest sophistry.

As someone else pointed out at a later juncture, this discourse is pointless, thanks to your intellectual dishonesty.

Thank you for playing, now please run along and leave the big kids alone. Come back, maybe, when you acquire some maturity and maybe grow up a great deal.


I'll point you to my last honourable post "Burnaby49". Here: viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10218&p=196964#p196964

Thank you. I won't do "snarky". :wink: :D
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5171
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:56 am

Don't drag me into this. I have no intention of debating with you or encouraging you. I'm just moderating you. But if others want to squabble in your own dedicated discussions go for it! But keep in mind no profanity or other non-allowable behavior.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Jeffrey » Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:04 am

I could describe you not as a 'Statist' as that's too broad a brush to paint you with but say, one who regards some form of State necessary; Would you go with that?


Sure why not.

If you do get the opportunity to explain you're previous stance about buying the cop a beer I'd like to read it please.


That is my explanation for why I would buy the cop a beer. The cop did something I view as morally and ethically good.

The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding.


What you described is free riding by definition. Income tax pays for things that he is benefiting from, by not paying it, he is getting a benefit without paying for it. That is free riding.

If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?


Simple answer, because it works better that way.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:28 am

Burnaby49 wrote:Don't drag me into this. I have no intention of debating with you or encouraging you. I'm just moderating you. But if others want to squabble in your own dedicated discussions go for it! But keep in mind no profanity or other non-allowable behavior.


As for profanity I respectfully suggest you look at the f and s words that have been posted by others here. Maybe you have though and I'm not aware.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:33 am

pigpot wrote:
Jeffrey wrote:Your individual there is an example of the free rider problem. He's getting the benefits of public goods and services without paying for them. Ultimately, the final recourse to dealing with that problem is for the state to use force against the individual.

Of course, being a Marc Stevens libertarian voluntary-ist, you'll disagree and say it's immoral to use force to punish him, but it's more immoral for him to exploit others by not paying taxes. And ultimately, a voluntary opt-in system for paying for public services would never work.


Well I've been accused of not answering others questions "Jeremy" but although you've done the same I'll forget that and move on. If you do get the opportunity to explain you're previous stance about buying the cop a beer I'd like to read it please.

Moving on. The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding. I mentioned income tax. So I'll add in for you that he or she pays their rates, road tax, dog licence, general sales tax, diesel tax (depending where you are in the world), all the other taxes other than income tax. What does the government do to arbitrarily tax peoples income tax and let's forget what the that goes to for the minute.

Why does the government get to monopolise what it wants? What about a voluntary society? Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?

Now it seems I'm typing with someone who can talk the talk. For that "Jeremy' I'm very VERY grateful. Of that you can be assured.

You describe me as, 'Of course, being a Marc Stevens libertarian voluntary-ist", though not strictly true we'll just use that as a point of reference and move on from there. I could describe you not as a 'Statist' as that's too broad a brush to paint you with but say, one who regards some form of State necessary; Would you go with that?

I mean WE are not at odds and to be fair to you this is the most agreeable disagreement I've had in a long time. So again thanks for that.

Hey but you and I are also agreeing over the fact that's immoral for anyone to use something they haven't paid into. I wouldn't. I think you are confusing the Freeman bullshit '96 is your fix and that everything has been paid for nonsense with anarchism. I don't believe that if I haven't paid into something I still get the right to use it though I STILL would never see someone starving on the streets.

And ultimately, a voluntary opt-in system for paying for public services would never work.
I've never seen it work in practice though I'd like to see it given a go. However with the big old bad ass government, that's going to be something that will be seen because government is NOT about allowing people self-determination. It's allowing people self-determination within given parameters. The two are not the same thing.

Cheers Jeremy. A certainly enlightened individual that has my respect for at least typing with / against me. Kudos to you for whatever you think it's worth. The length of my post is an account of how much I have enjoyed this on-line excursion into the void of opinions and facts. :D :wink:


To "Jeremy", This was my post, listed above. You conveniently chopped it up to give your answer which didn't respond to my points. As long as I know how the game is played.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:44 am

Jeffrey wrote:
I could describe you not as a 'Statist' as that's too broad a brush to paint you with but say, one who regards some form of State necessary; Would you go with that?


Sure why not.

If you do get the opportunity to explain you're previous stance about buying the cop a beer I'd like to read it please.


Jeffrey wrote:That is my explanation for why I would buy the cop a beer. The cop did something I view as morally and ethically good.
Killing someone over an unpaid questionable "debt"....... Well I hope you don't have children "Jeffrey" and that they can pay ALL their "debts" questionable or not. What a world you want to live in??? Sheesh. Moral and ethical. :sarcasmon: What about the film, "In time". Can't pay? Die. Chairman of Nestle says water is not a human right and it should be privatised. (Watch it on Youtube). Can't PAY for water? DIE. Great idea eh! :sarcasmon: A little like saying... AFRICA (the whole continent DIE).

The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding.


Jeffrey wrote:What you described is free riding by definition. Income tax pays for things that he is benefiting from, by not paying it, he is getting a benefit without paying for it. That is free riding.
How so? What are these things that income tax pays for that rates, road user, dog licence, diesel tax, general sales tax don't? The mythical "National Debt". Come on GREECE.

More to the point how does the government get the right that I don't have myself? What gives "them" above and beyond me the right to do things I can't? If I can't steal then how can they tax? Consent. Forget it.

If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?


Jeffrey wrote:Simple answer, because it works better that way.
For who? Can't I decide what's BEST for me? Not in your world it seems. That's NOT the world I'm going to live in "Jeffrey", 100% Guaranteed.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby Jeffrey » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:58 am

Killing someone over an unpaid questionable "debt"


That's not the example you provided. Your hypothetical individual used force to resist punishment for his free riding. I'm not going to shed any tears over his death.

What are these things that income tax pays for


You've got Google, use it.

For who? Can't I decide what's BEST for me? Not in your world it seems. That's NOT the world I'm going to live in "Jeffrey", 100% Guaranteed.


That is the world you live in. Whether you recognize that or not is your own problem.

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby AndyK » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:06 pm

pigpot wrote:
...

The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding. I mentioned income tax. So I'll add in for you that he or she pays their rates, road tax, dog licence, general sales tax, diesel tax (depending where you are in the world), all the other taxes other than income tax. What does the government do to arbitrarily tax peoples income tax and let's forget what the that goes to for the minute.

Why does the government get to monopolise what it wants? What about a voluntary society? Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?


Assuming you do not need clean, safe food; medicines which work and don't kill you; accurate weather reporting; broadcast television, radio, etc which doesn't interfere with other stations or your garage door opener; a system of significantly reducing the likelihood of in-air airplane crashes; major highways; or protection of patents and copyrights (to name a few) then I can't justify the federal taxes which support those activities.

Of course, most of the above could be funded on a pay-per-use basis and operated outside the central government. For example:
A per-flight surcharge to fund the costs of a priate air traffic control system
An added cost for each food or medication to fund a privately-operated inspection and testing corporation

Some of the other mentioned activities would be much more difficult to privatize and fund from users.

Until you come up with a bullet-proof plan to eliminate the NEED for an income tax, you are just wasting electrons by arguing against it.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:25 pm

pigpot wrote:
Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately?

Do you think a kid becomes a doctor at no expense to the taxpayer?
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Temporarily)
Banned (Temporarily)
Posts: 2032
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby arayder » Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:20 pm

It's John Locke vs. Lysander Spooner.

Not much more to say.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby wserra » Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:27 pm

pigpot wrote:My question is again (and now more structured and very specific) is it okay for the above to happen.


As I said before - perhaps somewhat differently - the problem is in the weasel words. "Is it okay" for someone to die for not paying taxes? Of course it isn't "okay". But it takes little in the way of reasoning to see from where you come, and for that reason I too will no longer participate in the sophistry.

You simply don't like the idea of government. Implicit in government is that obeying laws is not optional. An institution whose precepts are optional isn't a government, it's a church. (Although when religion takes over government, it tends to be far less tolerant than civil authority. But I digress.) A government must have force as the (hopefully) final option, or it does not function as government. Nothing says that you have to like the idea of government. There are certainly places in the world without functioning governments. Do those places appear utopian to you?

So you go ahead and disparage government's use of force to enforce law. Do so from behind the national defense that government provides, the heavily-subsidized medical care that you use, the transportation infrastructure without which we'd be hunter-gatherers, the food supply (and air, and water) the government protects, and while accepting the benefits of the thousands of other things, big and small, that government does. In the places that most of us post from, government even protects your right to say this dumb stuff.

The usual response to this point is, "Well, I didn't ask for and don't want this stuff". Nonsense. Were that really the case, there are places you could go that don't have them. And even if there weren't, the huge majority of the rest of us do want and do use them. Who put you in charge?

We've seen this all before. It's called "jerking off".
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:57 pm

AndyK wrote:
pigpot wrote:
...

The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding. I mentioned income tax. So I'll add in for you that he or she pays their rates, road tax, dog licence, general sales tax, diesel tax (depending where you are in the world), all the other taxes other than income tax. What does the government do to arbitrarily tax peoples income tax and let's forget what the that goes to for the minute.

Why does the government get to monopolise what it wants? What about a voluntary society? Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?


Assuming you do not need clean, safe food; medicines which work and don't kill you; accurate weather reporting; broadcast television, radio, etc which doesn't interfere with other stations or your garage door opener; a system of significantly reducing the likelihood of in-air airplane crashes; major highways; or protection of patents and copyrights (to name a few) then I can't justify the federal taxes which support those activities.

Of course, most of the above could be funded on a pay-per-use basis and operated outside the central government. For example:
A per-flight surcharge to fund the costs of a priate air traffic control system
An added cost for each food or medication to fund a privately-operated inspection and testing corporation

Some of the other mentioned activities would be much more difficult to privatize and fund from users.

Until you come up with a bullet-proof plan to eliminate the NEED for an income tax, you are just wasting electrons by arguing against it.


Thanks "AndyK"... And I do understand what you are offering in terms of services and conditions but it comes straight back down to the fact that why MUST I be compelled to 'HAVE' something I don't want or need but AM STILL required to HAVE and pay for regardless of my consent.

Listen folks, rather than bow out on a dirty note I'd rather accept that we will never agree on the matter. Free thinking people (non-statists) and they MUST be free thinkers as they are not bound by anything, not even the thought of being controlled, are growing in numbers. Just like Christianity is falling away. It's being replaced by something that's not necessarily better but different. And so it goes. The system protects itself because without the people the system is not a system. The people without the system, however tribal will still be tribal, without the system and long may it reign.

I'll conclude here and thanks for watching, thanks for all the players. For without them there would be no argument.

Arguing is fine... 1+1=2 is a mathematical ARGUMENT... IT makes sense.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:59 pm

rumpelstilzchen wrote:pigpot wrote:
Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately?

Do you think a kid becomes a doctor at no expense to the taxpayer?


Posting while not reading will post to this post soon.

Cheers. :wink:
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:00 pm

wserra wrote:
pigpot wrote:My question is again (and now more structured and very specific) is it okay for the above to happen.


As I said before - perhaps somewhat differently - the problem is in the weasel words. "Is it okay" for someone to die for not paying taxes? Of course it isn't "okay". But it takes little in the way of reasoning to see from where you come, and for that reason I too will no longer participate in the sophistry.

You simply don't like the idea of government. Implicit in government is that obeying laws is not optional. An institution whose precepts are optional isn't a government, it's a church. (Although when religion takes over government, it tends to be far less tolerant than civil authority. But I digress.) A government must have force as the (hopefully) final option, or it does not function as government. Nothing says that you have to like the idea of government. There are certainly places in the world without functioning governments. Do those places appear utopian to you?

So you go ahead and disparage government's use of force to enforce law. Do so from behind the national defense that government provides, the heavily-subsidized medical care that you use, the transportation infrastructure without which we'd be hunter-gatherers, the food supply (and air, and water) the government protects, and while accepting the benefits of the thousands of other things, big and small, that government does. In the places that most of us post from, government evens protects your right to say this dumb stuff.

The usual response to this point is, "Well, I didn't ask for and don't want this stuff". Nonsense. Were that really the case, there are places you could go that don't have them. And even if there weren't, the huge majority of the rest of us do want and do use them. Who put you in charge?

We've seen this all before. It's called "jerking off".


Posting while not reading will post to this post soon.

Cheers. :wink:
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:11 pm

wserra wrote:
pigpot wrote:My question is again (and now more structured and very specific) is it okay for the above to happen.


As I said before - perhaps somewhat differently - the problem is in the weasel words. "Is it okay" for someone to die for not paying taxes? Of course it isn't "okay". But it takes little in the way of reasoning to see from where you come, and for that reason I too will no longer participate in the sophistry.

You simply don't like the idea of government. Implicit in government is that obeying laws is not optional. An institution whose precepts are optional isn't a government, it's a church. (Although when religion takes over government, it tends to be far less tolerant than civil authority. But I digress.) A government must have force as the (hopefully) final option, or it does not function as government. Nothing says that you have to like the idea of government. There are certainly places in the world without functioning governments. Do those places appear utopian to you?

So you go ahead and disparage government's use of force to enforce law. Do so from behind the national defense that government provides, the heavily-subsidized medical care that you use, the transportation infrastructure without which we'd be hunter-gatherers, the food supply (and air, and water) the government protects, and while accepting the benefits of the thousands of other things, big and small, that government does. In the places that most of us post from, government evens protects your right to say this dumb stuff.

The usual response to this point is, "Well, I didn't ask for and don't want this stuff". Nonsense. Were that really the case, there are places you could go that don't have them. And even if there weren't, the huge majority of the rest of us do want and do use them. Who put you in charge?

We've seen this all before. It's called "jerking off".


Hey "Wes" you seriously nearly won me over. I can see where your thoughts go. I'm just looking for the end game. Where does it all end up. Any ideas?
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:12 pm

AndyK wrote:
pigpot wrote:
...

The individual you and I both referenced to isn't free riding. I mentioned income tax. So I'll add in for you that he or she pays their rates, road tax, dog licence, general sales tax, diesel tax (depending where you are in the world), all the other taxes other than income tax. What does the government do to arbitrarily tax peoples income tax and let's forget what the that goes to for the minute.

Why does the government get to monopolise what it wants? What about a voluntary society? Why can't I pay for the services of a doctor as and when I need one? If I'm healthy why can't I pay privately? Why must the government take my income away at source without consent for things I may never need?


Assuming you do not need clean, safe food; medicines which work and don't kill you; accurate weather reporting; broadcast television, radio, etc which doesn't interfere with other stations or your garage door opener; a system of significantly reducing the likelihood of in-air airplane crashes; major highways; or protection of patents and copyrights (to name a few) then I can't justify the federal taxes which support those activities.

Of course, most of the above could be funded on a pay-per-use basis and operated outside the central government. For example:
A per-flight surcharge to fund the costs of a priate air traffic control system
An added cost for each food or medication to fund a privately-operated inspection and testing corporation

Some of the other mentioned activities would be much more difficult to privatize and fund from users.

Until you come up with a bullet-proof plan to eliminate the NEED for an income tax, you are just wasting electrons by arguing against it.
If I pay for all of the above which I need / want and can be provided at cost to myself without involving a third party, why do I need a third party interloper (Government) involved in my business? HOW are they needed?

But most if not at all aren't required by some individuals so why is the compulsion? Answer is easy. Because it's easier for the system. Forget the individual.[/quote]

AndyK wrote:Assuming you do not need clean, safe food; medicines which work and don't kill you;
Can't I employ a private organisation to do this for me? Why must I be regulated by a body the is GIVEN?

AndyK wrote:accurate weather reporting; broadcast television, radio, etc which doesn't interfere with other stations or your garage door opener;


AndyK wrote:a system of significantly reducing the likelihood of in-air airplane crashes; major highways; or protection of patents and copyrights (to name a few) then I can't justify the federal taxes which support those activities.
My consent seems irrelevant concerning the matter. I'll dig out a video for the matter.

Cheers.
Last edited by pigpot on Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Temporarily)
Banned (Temporarily)
Posts: 2032
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby arayder » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:17 pm

pig pot wrote:Free thinking people (non-statists) and they MUST be free thinkers as they are not bound by anything, not even the thought of being controlled, are growing in numbers. Just like Christianity is falling away. It's being replaced by something that's not necessarily better but different. And so it goes. The system protects itself because without the people the system is not a system. The people without the system, however tribal will still be tribal, without the system and long may it reign.


You make the assumption that any group of people who form a society and make laws for the common good cannot be free thinkers. This is one of the myths "the movement" has invented to make members of it's subculture believe they have a better, braver which way the suit wearing statist pigs can't possibly understand.

pigpot
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:49 am

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby pigpot » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:37 pm

arayder wrote:
pig pot wrote:Free thinking people (non-statists) and they MUST be free thinkers as they are not bound by anything, not even the thought of being controlled, are growing in numbers. Just like Christianity is falling away. It's being replaced by something that's not necessarily better but different. And so it goes. The system protects itself because without the people the system is not a system. The people without the system, however tribal will still be tribal, without the system and long may it reign.


You make the assumption that any group of people who form a society and make laws for the common good cannot be free thinkers. This is one of the myths "the movement" has invented to make members of it's subculture believe they have a better, braver which way the suit wearing statist pigs can't possibly understand.


Hey "arayder" you may have a point there and please don't look at banning me over this (not that you are) but there is also a misconception. There are 'Freemen' types like 'bmxninja357' who espouse this and that like '96 Is your fix" and then there are anarchists who I do NOT speak for but are ready for any commentary that is logical. A huge difference is purely that... Begin a conversation with a "Freeman-on-the-land" and then begin a conversation with an anarchist. The anarchist will determine the Freeman has no land and thus no ground. The anarchist believes he has no ground and that he can OWN nothing but it applies to all and sundry, all of the time. Possibly.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:45 pm

pigpot wrote:
If I pay for all of the above which I need / want and can be provided at cost to myself without involving a third party, why do I need a third party interloper (Government) involved in my business? HOW are they needed?

What are you going to use for money?
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Temporarily)
Banned (Temporarily)
Posts: 2032
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: May I respctfully begin a new thread?

Postby arayder » Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:51 pm

I don't intent to go 'round and 'round with you over what label you have on your jar, Pigpot. My point is that you have wrongly projected a point of view upon a group of people. There are plenty of free thinkers in "regular" society. But you have plainly ignored that reality in order to make it seem you have a brilliant, brave idea.

Along the way you have studiously and disingenuously ignored the several posts pointing out that communities, societies and countries are often faced with tasks which must be done for the common good.

And do me a favor and don't try to make me out a cop by pretending I want to ban you.


Return to “Other Countries/Regions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Bot] and 1 guest