No, I don't break the laws so I don't have to worry being pulled over.
You obviously do, so you worry about them.
Your initial claim was that statism is not enforced through violence. I proposed a simple test for this assertion and your response was to evade the point.
I have no reason but to assume that this is a concession on your part. Not only have you recognized that the state is enforced through violence by refusing give me a straight answer, but you have implicitly suggested that you approve of the use of violence against me.
Would you like to clarify this stance?
Oh BS, the vast majority of arrests are not for non-violent crimes.
That is only if you do not factor in what is not represented in the graphs...
In a society raised and educated by abusers, the first order of business of the ruling class is too make sure that by the time anybody reaches maturity they are made to be incapable of seeing the abuse. Thus the abusers define for you what is a crime and what is not a crime. Ergo; theft of the ruling class is called taxation, it's kidnappings are called arrests, it's forced indoctrination of the young is called education, and beatings of parents on their young are called discipline etc. For this reason most people are incapable of seeing the violence of the state.
In evolutionary terms it is a good survival strategy to edit the violence of rulers out of consciousness as those children who point it out are likely to be killed, abandoned, or in modern times drugged into compliance. So stastics like this will always mislead people to believe that government is there to protect them and not to prey on them.
However, if we think about crime statistics objectively than arrests for non-violent crimes in comparison to the crimes committed by the government through taxation we can see that the rule of law, where it really counts, is indeed tilted on a ninety degree axis. This isn't to say that all people who are employed by the government are deranged or bad. There are many careers where you can't have any chance of success or of making a positive impact on the life of others unless you do it through compliance with government. But that doesn't change the fact that government jobs are funded through theft. It is the nature of the society we were born into. A society where the police and military are the physical abusers and the media and the politicians are the verbal abusers. Together, they successfully prevent most people from ever thinking clearly about the world, keeping them trapped in a projected fantasy so that they never have to confront what goes unexamined in their unconscious.
So long as you allow abusers to define criminal behavior for you your experience of reality will be fundamentally corrupted.
Nope, they don't make the laws.
Nor do they determine guilt.
You really don't know how our government works do you?
First you said that I created the government. Then you backtracked and admitted that it has nothing to do with me. Now you are saying that I own it. Which is it?
And no one is being kidnapped.
The Police turn them over to the Justice System which indeed has bail and Habeus Corpus rules.
None of which would be a problem if they prosecuted crime consistently (see above).
Of course, if they did that they would have to throw themselves in jail.
You REALLY don't know how our govenment actually works, do you?
I do not own strangers with guns. I own myself. Do you have any documented evidence that I own the government?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And I explained that it doesn't.
You can leave any time you want.
You are merely assuming the validity of your position on faith. Using circular logic. The fact that I exist does not entitle any other human being to abuse me even if they think that it does because I live in proximity to them. I know that government is an abuser because it refuses to use peaceful non-aggressive policies to interact with me.
If you stay, you are giving your consent.
You don't have to stay.
It's a BIG world.
There are lots of other choices.
No. It is not the responsibility of the abused person to leave a given area if he is being abused. His first order of business is to point out the hypocrisy and immorality of his abusers. You just want me to go away or shut up. Again, assuming the validity of your beliefs on faith without offering justification.
And I've told you that you can leave if you don't consent.
What part of staying implies consent don't you understand?
Your position boils down to "because I said so."
No child is obligated to obey abusers just because he happened to be born in the same area as them. The fact that abusers believe that they have the right to force their ridiculous superstitions onto him does not mean that they actually have that right.
So?
This country is not just about you.
But adoucette. You are the one who wants to have the beliefs of your tribe forced on me. It's not the other way around.
I just want to be left in peace. So in that sense it is about me. I spent thirteen years being abused by teachers and peers in state schools. What justification do I have to say it was abuse? Well, I was forced to be their and didn't want to be. And forced relationships are abusive relationships. My parents were raised and indoctrinated by the state as well, and so was everyone who stood by and did nothing. There was no escape. I'm standing up for the child I once was who had no voice at the time to point out the immorality and hypocrisy of the people calling themselves government.
I am under no obligation to obey abusers, or consider them legitimate. I have found that the non-aggression principle is vastly superior to central planning as a solution to the problem of ethics and of social organization. So that is what I advocate.
You do.
It's how our government works.
You just have to find enough other people who agree with you first.
Libertarians with far better education and know how than I have tried and failed spectacularly over the years to reduce the size of government. And if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, than to try to use the state to reduce the state is a form of spiritual suicide.
Personally, I strive not to be insane (though admittedly I have a lot of work ahead of me
)
Nah, they have sensible laws that allow you freedom to pretty much do what you please.
Like print my own currency?
http://sovereignthink.wordpress.com...-federal-competition-silver-death-sentencing/
Sorry, not into You-tubes as a form of argument.
State your case if you can.
Your assertion was that "we create the government. we can change it.". I refuted this by pointing out that I never created any governments, and used first person terminology to point out the insanity of using "we" to refer to the activity of strangers with guns as if I'm somehow part of their group.
Your rebuttals were little more than limp wrist-ed platitudes.
The videos are salutary. For anyone who might be intrigued by some of the stuff I say but turned off by others. If they are so inclined I like to link to videos that explain the perspective of liberty in a way I cannot given my mind has so much healing and growth to go through before it is liberated or even sane.
The reason I'm debating you because you are a very smart and well educated person with the opposite beliefs of me. It helps me to refine my understanding to put it to the test. If left to my own devices I tend to become an echo chamber to myself and I lose the plot.
I'm not ready to associate with like minded people because I'm figuring out what my own mind is. And I can't really do that if I surround myself with people who agree with me.
Well if it's not a trivial issue you could get in trouble.
But you know what, there really aren't that many police officers running around telling you what to do.
This isn't sufficient to address the point of this thread which is does government equal violence or not? It is sufficient to my purposes to demonstrate instances of violence perpetrated by government. Regardless of any context with regards to it's virtue and necessity. And although from my perspective these two threads are mutually exclusive, from yours that is not necessarily the case. Keep in mind however that the primary discussion is about violence. The secondary one is about virtue and necessity.
Well you could get arrested.
Is that what this is all about?
You don't like it that drugs are illegal.
Again, you can move to places where they are.
Another admission that government is violence, and another apology for the abuser, saying it is my responsibility to change. It is not. it is only my responsibility to point out the immorality and hypocrisy of the abuser.
You act as though your position is not subject to falsifiability. Any time I falsify your statements you simply divert attention elsewhere.
This is dishonest.
Well, I thank you then. Perhaps we are making progress.
So? again it's not all about you.
You don't seem to be able to process any of the arguments I'm putting forth.
Also, you are acting as though your beliefs are not subject to rational scrutiny. That even from a theoretical standpoint, there is nothing that could be said that would falsify them.
Is this a fair diagnosis? I'm sorry, but all I'm getting on this end is condescension, not argument.
Nope, only if you exchange the money the people allowed the government to create. Use of their money is indeed a form of consent.
This is just more verbal abuse backed up with no argument. Proximity to an abuser is not sufficient cause for moral or legal obligation to obey them. The "people" don't decide anything. They have been trained not to be able to think, and hence they are intellectually defenseless against the predations of the government.
When you want to deal with the real world let me know.
More verbal abuse.
Again, move to where you won't be.
If I did that I would be giving moral sanction to abusers. I'd be saying that they have every right to behave as they behave.
They do not.
As far as I know you can do that here.
Glad to know.
The next time a police officer attempts to talk to me I will just keep walking.
He's not an abuser after all. He will understand that I'm free to move as I please.
"Get lost" is the last refuge of a man who has no argument.
See above.
No it's not.
There are 310 million other people here.
They, for the most part, don't agree with you.
Just because the vast majority of Christians disagree with atheism does not mean that Christianity is the default rational and consistent perspective that every one should defer to or exile themselves. I already explained that belief in the state is distributed at exactly the ratio one would expect given that most everyone is processed through it's education camps. I certainly never consented to going.
I am arguing from first principles. You are arguing from the bully pulpit.
But they were here first and made the rules.
Don't like em, then you can either stay and work to change them or find another place that suits you better.
The people who set up the government have been dead for hundreds of years. No dead person could set up any contract that is binding on the unborn in perpetuity. Besides. Rules are made for the ruled, not for the rulers. I'd have no problem with rules so long as they apply equally to everyone. As far as the states "rules" go, they are arbitrary commandments backed up with death threats.
Not worthy of respect or of the label "rules".
