Remember, anyone who says they support taxation is also someone who supports victimless crimes (putting people in jail even though they haven't harmed anyone else)
Socialism and fascism (and their taxation) are at the heart anti-freedom ideology. You cannot support taxation extortion/threat of kidnapping and be considered a good human being. You're literally threatening to murder people if they defend themselves against your aggression.
Welcome to the dumbest thing on the internet today, folks.
Please elaborate. Why do you think that the OP is the dumbest thing on the internet?
There's just no good place to start, bud. But please, continue to believe that fascism and socialism are the same thing and that anyone that thinks working together and combining resources (and power) for mutual benefit also supports ::checks notes:: the "war on drugs".
I was once this ignorant too, and used the same circular and/or illogical arguments you'll use to defend it. No thanks, it's just stupid and I'm uninterested in wasting my time trying to show you otherwise.
So that's what you claim is an explanation of why the OP is the dumbest thing on the internet?
➽ There's just no good place to start, bud.
At the beginning, "bud".
You've expressed an opinion. You have NOT presented a truth, nor have you presented a fact.
➽ But please, continue to believe that fascism and socialism are the same thing [...]
The OP wrote: Socialism and fascism (and their taxation) are at the heart anti-freedom ideology.
I'll just continue to conclude that Socialism and Fascism share the one property, the one attribute of being ANTI-freedom ideologies. The point the OP was intending to communicate. Roger OP, I read you 5x5; Lima Charlie.
➽ [...] and that anyone that thinks working together and combining resources (and power) for mutual benefit [...]
You've missed an important point. Is the working together done voluntarily or under threat, duress, and coercion? Are the resources given up to be combined given up freely, or under threat, duress, and coercion?
Is that benefit actually mutual? What benefit do I get from a ruling class that prosecutes and incarcerates people who:
drink unpasteurized milk;
drink alcohol;
exceed the speed limit;
drive without a license; meaning;
drive without my permission;
drive an unregistered car;
distill whiskey and other spirits without a license;
smoke marijuana;
gamble;
purchase a vibrator or other sex toy;
pay for sex;
carry a concealed weapon;
carry a gun without permission;
own a fully automatic gun without paying for permission.
➽ I was once this ignorant too, and used the same circular and/or illogical arguments you'll use to defend it.
What, specifically, is this "it" to which you refer?
➽ No thanks, it's just stupid and I'm uninterested in wasting my time trying to show you otherwise.
But showing your statist opinion is not a waste of your time?
If taking 100% if the product of someone's labor is slavery exactly what percentage is not slavery?
You should ask as capitalist that question, Robert.
Listen, losers, it's not that I can't explain it to you, it's that you refuse to understand it so it's a waste of time. You complain about taxes being taken from your check but not that the owner class, your boss, takes more of the product of your labor than taxes ever have. In fact, you think your boss shouldn't pay taxes either, even though the state he'd pay taxes into is the same one that backs his claim of ownership in the company and all it's contracts up with force. You consistently complain that voting is consent to be governed yet ignore that you're still in the same place (but definitely without representation) when you refuse to participate.
Your capitalist bootlicking ideology is incompatible with anarchism. You just haven't realized it yet.
It's not a statist opinion, genius. It's reality. A lot of things could be done without the government. They aren't. Some things can't be done without cooperation or are better done when people cooperate, such as negotiating prices or pay.
Again, the ideals of "anarcho-capitalism" not only conflict with themselves but they conflict with the reality we're all living right now.
In your game, played the way you're playing it, you will always lose as will freedom.
I have no problem calling bullshit, fuckery, or stupidity for what it is, Jennifer. In person or online. The only "emotions" that has anything to do with what I've said here would be disappointment and exasperation.
Watching people complain about government and what it does while espousing ideas like apathy and "actions" that are actually inaction, such as refusing to vote to make changes, is tiring. If you're going to bitch about shit (when you're not sucking the cocks of the ruling, capitalist, class) then you had better at least be attempting to do something about it or just shut the fuck up.
Yes, on this page it is. I was a fan from the beginning. I know the room enough to know that it's an echo chamber, and only an echo chamber, for bad arguments and apathy. I learned the err of my thinking process and ideas elsewhere, and these folks will have to do the same.
Bad argument example: socialism = fascism.
Wrong.
That's why it's fruitless to argue/discuss with them, Jen. Now I only point out their stupid positions as stupid and move on without trying to change their minds.
I'll be reviewing this set of posts later. I will have questions about your proclamations. So I will be calling you out again in tonight, tomorrow, even in the next week. I love discussions with statists. Later.
Lmao "proclamations".
I hereby proclaim ye dumb.
Voting for people that think the war on drugs is an utter failure/monstrosity is not endorsing the war on drugs. Do you understand why, comrade?
➽ I hereby proclaim ye dumb.
That says more about you than me.
The job I was going to do got cancelled at the last moment. So now I can address your proclamations... The ones that are worth addressing. Like this one:
➽ Listen, losers, it's not that I can't explain it to you, it's that you refuse to understand it so it's a waste of time.
What, specifically, is the "it" you keep referring to? Boogers are dried snot? Kids and GHW Bush don't like broccoli? Kids would rather eat boogers than broccoli? What is "IT"?
How anarchism, the desire to eliminate or make illegitimate any ruling class, is incompatible with capitalism. How, as Jen said earlier, the anarcho-capitalist is playing into the game they think they're playing against. You are not the neckbearded, fedora wearing, scotch discerning mental guants you believe yourselves to be. In fact, objective reality shows us that your apathy and abstention from participation (even if it is righteously principled) further worsens the chance that anyone but the most wealthy are represented by the very government you believe they should not contribute to.
Bitching about government while refusing to take even the most casual action to change it is just whining.
➽ How anarchism, the desire to eliminate or make illegitimate any ruling class, is incompatible with capitalism.
Thank you.
Reminder to self: Show proof that any ruling class is bogus. (I don't use the words "legitimate" nor "illegitimate" because of the cult of lawyers.
Voltaire's admonition paraphrased: If you wish to communicate, define your terms.
What, specifically, do you mean when you use the word "capitalism"?
Planning ahead:
➽ In fact, objective reality shows us that your apathy and abstention from participation (even if it is righteously principled) further worsens the chance that anyone but the most wealthy are represented by the very government you believe they should not contribute to.
Methinks ye be confused about the difference 'tween apathy and abstention. Apathy is I and others don't care. Abstention is I and others do care.
What I care about is that voting for either candidate, be it Carlo Gambino vs. Vito Genovese... Or be it Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden, is a vote for who is going to run the criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control. The abstainers understand that voting validates a corrupt system.
The purpose of this "righteously principled" choice, is to get the attention of the voters still indoctrinated with the belief that voting gives them a meaningful choice. As more people choose to abstain, more voters will begin to question "Why?"
Your "continue to vote or you're doing nothing" mantra is the equivalent of saying "Change the Mafia from the inside."
➽ You complain about taxes being taken from your check but not that the owner class, your boss, takes more of the product of your labor than taxes ever have.
You have just made the claim that the owner class "takes more of the product of your labor than taxes ever have."
I'm believing (that is, I suspect but don't know for sure) where you are coming from with that claim.
Regardless, I'm going to challenge you to provide proof of that claim. To do so, again I invoke Voltaire's Admonition. I suspect that you and I need to agree on what, exactly, is the product of one's labor. So what, specifically, is meant by "value"? Currency typically is what is exchanged for the laborer's labor.
➽ In fact, you think your boss shouldn't pay taxes either, even though the state he'd pay taxes into is the same one that backs his claim of ownership in the company and all it's contracts up with force.
Lemme see if I can follow your thoughts here.
You think the only way the owner/boss can have his claim to ownership backed is by the extortion and violence of the state?
You think the only way the owner/boss can have his contracts backed is by the extortion and violence of the state?
You think the owner/boss needs ALL his contracts backed by the extortion and violence of the state?
And don't forget, a contract needs more than one party.
Why would an owner/boss need to have his ownership backed in the first place?
➽ You consistently complain that voting is consent to be governed yet ignore that you're still in the same place (but definitely without representation) when you refuse to participate.
Actually, a guy by the name of Lysander Spooner called bullshit on that theory back in 1870 when he wrote:
⚠ “In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.⛔
Voting is NOT consent. NOT voting is also NOT consent. So presenting my previous words on the subject:
Voting for a Representative
You have been taught to believe that you have a right to vote to choose a Representative. There are logical flaws and delusions in this fairy tale.
Imagine two candidates trying to get elected. Candidate A is running on an anti-Lilac platform and has promised to enact legislation making it illegal to have Lilac bushes growing in your yard. Candidate B is running on a pro-Lilac platform and has promised to oppose any anti-Lilac legislation.
If the anti-Lilac Candidate wins, then the anti-Lilac majority of voters will have representation in Congress; the pro-Lilac voters will not have any representation in Congress.
Conversely; If the pro-Lilac Candidate wins, then the pro-Lilac majority of voters will have representation and the anti-Lilac minority of voters will not.
The majority controls who is going to allegedly represent the minority.
An elected alleged Representative will write, dicker, and then vote with other alleged Representatives regarding a new law and if 51% of the alleged Representatives voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.
Any person who represents another is called an agent. The person being represented is called the principal.
In a true principal - agent relationship, the agent can not command the principal. The agent is required to obey the principal's wishes and protect the principal's interests. Also, if the agent fails to represent the principal and the principal's interests, the principal can terminate the agent's employment immediately.
Calling Congressional Legislators "Representatives" is a lie, regardless of the dictionary definitions doing just that. Newspeak anyone?
Legislators can not be immediately terminated for failing to protect any voter's interests. True representative agents can not command their principals, which is exactly what Legislators do with their laws. Laws that Legislators enact are commands.
So why call them Representatives?
They're not and they don't.
So why vote for them?
The record of alleged Representatives sure looks to me like they just do what they want anyway.
➽ Bitching about government while refusing to take even the most casual action to change it is just whining.
Let's look at that "whining" you are bitching and whining about...
You are bitching and whining about people like myself who have figured out voting does not change anything. No matter who gets selected to be the next president or the next legislator(s) (deliberately and erroneously called representatives), they STILL operate by EXTORTION.
If you are voting, you are NOT shouting to anybody that will pay attention, that they are voting FOR extortion... That they are voting FOR validating a corrupt system that extorts people for money and control.
And you... Getting militant while bitching and whining about my reasoned choice to no longer play the game.
➽ I have no problem calling bullshit, fuckery, or stupidity for what it is, [...]. In person or online. The only "emotions" that has anything to do with what I've said here would be disappointment and exasperation.
You know what? Me too.
I attempt to avoid the name calling and attempt to get my discussion partner/opponent to focus on the issues of contention.
Something you have not yet mastered... Not attacking the other person with name calling.
➽ Again, the ideals of "anarcho-capitalism" not only conflict with themselves but they conflict with the reality we're all living right now.
Voltaire's Admonition. What, specifically, do you mean by "anarcho-capitalism"? What are its properties? What are its attributes?
Another person asked you: If taking 100% if the product of someone's labor is slavery exactly what percentage is not slavery?
You ignored the question. Why? Are you afraid to admit that extorting the product of anyone's labor is slavery? You pro statism posts indicate to me that is exactly why.
