Slavery exists too, ssu.



Any man can afford another man a right, and anyone can defend someone else’s rights. It’s as simple as that. If you need a state to tell you what rights are important and when you should defend them, they can get you to do anything.

Just 'cos I've got Ebola, smallpox and leprosy (having a bad disease day) doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed down the pub. Muh rights!

Covid restrictions = tyranny of the state.

If only we'd wake up and remember that the state is there to enrich the already wealthy; to uphold patent laws; to funnel public funds into research and development that is then given over to private hands; to keep taxes lower for the ultra wealthy than for anyone else; to bailout the financial sector whenever necessary; and to subsidize environment-killing fossil fuels.

That's not COVID you're dying of -- that's freedom.

:100:

That’s a strange conception of freedom.

Voltaire was right: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another. — NOS4A2

Sounds good, especially if you take from those who didn't earn it, or pay true cost for it, and give it to those who earned it, or payed the cost for it.

Anyway, on another tangent, I heard Biden put a $100.00/day tax on all containers backed up at the ports. Then, all of sudden, companies discovered a way to get product moving. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, :rofl:

Actually, I don't know if that's all that great. I mean, think of all the tons of plastic Chinese shit coming in. Hmmm. !Murica!

The government didn’t earn that money, that’s for sure. It won’t give to anyone but itself.

Brilliant. If taxes go up on shipping then shipping raises the prices, and, as usual, the cost is left up to the citizen. It makes no sense, if true. But also as usual, government sees itself to the solution to a problem it created, like any protection racket.

Fortunately the state has "libertarians" ( :wink: ) to aid the transfer of money to Wall Street.

The government didn’t earn that money, that’s for sure. It won’t give to anyone but itself. — NOS4A2

Yes, it earned it. I started to list the countless things it did for you and others to earn it (which is to not keep it, but turn around and give it back in many services, and few goods), but it's a thankless task for the ungrateful and ungraceful, so I won't waste my time.

Brilliant. If taxes go up on shipping then shipping raises the prices, and, as usual, the cost is left up to the citizen. — NOS4A2

Good. They need to internalize a fraction of the true cost of all that plastic shit they consume.

It makes no sense, if true. — NOS4A2

So, you believe in welfare? Where costs are passed on to that and those that did not incur them? Who'd a thunk it? Old NOS supports cost externalization!

But also as usual, government sees itself to the solution to a problem it created, like any protection racket. — NOS4A2

How did the government create that problem? Oh yeah, I forgot: the government embargoed China, and then ginned up the Corona. Got it. P.S. If .gov created the problem, then how come a tax fixed it? I mean, those boys at the port were wringing their hands and saying it couldn't be done, and market forces wouldn't allow it. All of as sudden the constipation frees up. Turns out all they needed was a little incentive. I thought markets did that?

No, it didn’t earn it. First it begged for it, as with war bonds, then it took it, as with income tax. Only after the money is seized could it provide for you the things you claim it does. It doesn’t just start providing services in wait for some true-believer like James to tell everyone it is deserving of some payment for its services. Hilarious.

The government created the problem by imposing lockdowns, shuttering businesses, forcing people in their homes, thereby altering consumption and shopping patterns.

No, it didn’t earn it. First it begged for it, as with war bonds, then it took it, as with income tax. — NOS4A2

Wait, what? I thought government took everything under threat of force? You mean .gov actually asked, begged even? And here I thought you were in the camps!

Only after the money is seized could it provide for you the things you claim it does. — NOS4A2

No, only after .gov subdued the Indians and stole their land, and subsidized your railroads, lumber, mining, etc. could those industries "earn" their ill-gotten social welfare gains. That's how .gov earned it. Then it protected you and them to go about your rape of the land.

It doesn’t just start providing services in wait for some true-believer like James to tell everyone it is deserving of some payment for its services. — NOS4A2

Actually, it does. Only it's not me it waits for. It waits for your Plutocratic heroes to pull the levers.

The government created the problem by imposing lockdowns, shuttering businesses, forcing people in their homes, thereby altering consumption and shopping patterns. — NOS4A2

The government didn't create those problems. Stupid people who refused to mask, distance and vax created those problems. But hey, if it altered consumption and shopping patterns for the best, I'm all in. I hear the air got cleaner, and even saw instances where wildlife started venturing back into towns, etc. Good deal! It's about time people started paying true cost for their welfare.

Anyway, you should be thanking Biden for pulling the stuck turn out of the capital ass.

No, it didn’t earn it. — NOS4A2

Hey, I've got a question for you: Down here in the U.S., the servicemen and women, and the cops are venerated. They provide that thin green line, and thin blue line between us and the forces of evil foreign states, and domestic criminals that might otherwise invade and/or do us harm. I'm wondering how you feel about their association with government? How that protection should be handled, or if it should? Should it be privatized? Or just done away with all together? Do you think they've contributed positively or negatively to you lifestyle and standard of living? I'm not talking about foreign adventures. I'm just asking about the local stuff.

Exactly, they stole the land and gave it to their friends. It’s an organized monopoly. Now you say I should become their friend, to enjoy “all they’ve given you”, which turns out to be no more than the fruits of their robbery.



I’m not an anarchist when it comes to the organization of defence. Though I believe people should protect their communities, they are at risk being wiped out and subject to the worst that man can offer. So I agree with Paine that government may be a necessary evil in that regard, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world.

Exactly, they stole the land and gave it to their friends. It’s an organized monopoly. Now you say I should become their friend, to enjoy “all they’ve given you”, which turns out to be no more than the fruits of their robbery. — NOS4A2

No, I think you should distinguish between the tool and those who wield it. When you blame to tool you just do what they want.

I’m not an anarchist when it comes to the organization of defence. Though I believe people should protect their communities, they are at risk being wiped out and subject to the worst that man can offer. So I agree with Paine that government may be a necessary evil in that regard, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world. — NOS4A2

Thanks. Good luck. Oh, and we will be sending a bill for a tiny fraction of the other stuff you enjoy, and which you would not have, but-for .gov.

Your naive human rights theories are disproved by the fact that lawless areas in the world have worse human rights records. As usual you have nothing interesting to add with your ideas that are utterly detached from reality.

There is nothing disproved about the fact that men can afford other men rights. History is blood-soaked with states denying rights, so I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.

There is nothing disproved about the fact that men can afford other men rights. — NOS4A2

It's not disproved by the fact that they can. It's disproved by the fact that they don't. We came up with the state, flawed thought it may be, to move us closer to the can. And, notwithstanding state wars and state oppression, we have moved closer to the can.

But it's like Covid 19 vaccines: those who don't want to go along fuck it all up for everyone else, and move us back toward the don't.

First it begged for it, as with war bonds, — NOS4A2

Right, which kept some one with a funny accent from sticking a bayonet between your ribs or taking you for a ride in the back of a truck with a peculiar exhaust pipe. What a foolish fool you are, nos4!

Voltaire was right: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another. — NOS4A2

The irony here is that many agree with this. They only disagree just who is actually stealing from whom.

Obviously some have this problem of living in a society with some issues that are collective.

I fear that most are concerned with whom the wealth is given to rather than the fact that it is stolen in the first place. In effect they accept that state institutions are above and beyond common morality.

bullshit "Noble savage" ideas. Without enforcement and centralised government no society or organisation has managed to protect human rights. Your "men can grant each other rights" romanticism notwithstanding, not everyone will play and you need to deal with that. Time and again history has proven only strong governments subject to the rule of law can manage this.

I didn’t mention any noble savages.

If you can mention any “centralized government” that has not violated the very human rights it purports to protect I’ll be very surprised. The history of states since time immemorial prove otherwise.

Government is just a tool. If you don't like how it is being used, then wield it yourself. It is strange how you would turn over control of the tool to those who wield it against you. Maybe you are like Gandhi, and believe that if you lay down the gun, no one else will use it. Maybe it will go away.

I’d rather not.

I’d rather not. — NOS4A2

Rather not what? Wield the tool?

Yes, I’d rather not wield the tool.

Yes, I’d rather not wield the tool. — NOS4A2

Cool. Those who do wo wield it are happy with your decision.

nope. The challenge is to demonstrate there is or was a society without a centralised government that had an excellent human rights record. It doesn't exist hence you have an idiotic ahistorical view which is purely driven by naive ideology. And while no government is perfect, by and large, most European countries uphold human rights at a level not seen at any time before in history. Thanks to strong social governments.

I’ve never stated there was a society without a centralised government that had an excellent human rights record. So I’m not sure why I would have to demonstrate it.

Any bill of rights was formed in spite of the state, mostly to protect the individual from infringement by state authority. The UN declaration, for example, was brought about because various “centralized governments” had the bright idea to submerge the earth in war and genocide. Bills of rights don’t come about because centralized government is the best protector of them, but because they are the worst violators of them.

Bills of rights don’t come about because centralized government is the best protector of them, but because they are the worst violators of them. — NOS4A2

That's simply not true. Centralized government comes about because the absence of them is the worst violator. Then, to check the centralized government, the Bills are created. Again, that is why you are personally so much better off than you otherwise would be. First, .gov protects you from me. Then it protects you from it.