The number one enemy of freedom.

Post Reply New Topic

I thought you Teabaggers hated "Obamacare."

Yeah... And your reasons are? Just scare stories...
Chaos! Crime! Oh the calamity! We need thugs to take money away from people who produce to give it to people who need it!

The principle is this, violence, and I don't agree with it unlike yourself.

Interesting, but flawed.

Laws in the USA prohibit speech that incites to riot. The Neo-Nazis don't grow in number largely because they come across as idiots. If their numbers grow, it's because of things that give people a reason to join...such as job ending policies which generate anger the Neo-Nazis can capitalize on.

The problem with the Muslim population is that it is tolerated entirely too much. Europe is so blasted politically correct that a Christian can be punished for trying to proselytize someone to their faith, but God help you (sic) if you try to impose that same standard on any Muslim. They demand, and they get whatever they want. Resist and they do acts of violence. No religious group should be allowed to act with such a level of contempt for others in the community. If they want to live in a theocracy, they can pack up and go back to the hole in the ground they immigrated from.

The USA is starting to make that same mistake with Muslims here. The law is clear, if you teach violence in a church, it can be shut down.

Nonetheless, when you start acting against a religion, it becomes a slippery slope. We want freedom to worship as we see fit. In America, the idea is that so long as you do harm to no one, your beliefs are your beliefs and the state has no business getting involved. We want freedom of speech because only with an open exchange of ideas can truth come to light. If we allow one type of speech to be readily censored, where does it stop? Who gets to decide what is permissive and what is prohibited? The best legal minds agree that there is no easy way to decide such matters and that is it an issue ripe for abuse.

As long as you don't invade, destroy, steal the property of others and/or as long as you don't harm others you can do and say whatever the hell you want.
That is freedom.
It works wherever it is applied.
Nazis and radical religious violence have roots in the suppression of freedom.

For permanent results, threat the cause not the symptoms.

But terrorism harms others.

Acts can be terrorism. Words can not unless someone is directly threatening your person...in person.

We have laws against inciting to violence because of the foreseeable risk of someone listening to the message going out and doing as encouraged.

That is exactly what the UK government is doing. They have laws against inciting violence but they are hesitant at enforcing it.

Incitement to riot is a felony and suborning a felony is a felony. Also speech constituting a conspiracy to commit a felony is not protected speech.

ruveyn

The State "takes you into custody" ... You kidnap

The State "taxes" people ... You extort money, you steal

The State "regulates" the market ... You obstruct other people's businesses

The State "enforces the law" ... You impose your values unto others

The State "investigates" ... You spy

Therefore I take it you feel the government should have no power to tax and therefore have no funds to carry out the procedures necessary to maintain the community.

You prefer the market to be totally unregulated to encourage the type of financial activities that screwed hundreds of thousands of home owners in the latest economic mess in the USA.

Therefore you want no law enforcement to permit the most brutal vicious well armed people to control social relationships.

There fore you want the state to have no investigatory powers to discover criminal activity.

It´s not about the laws, they mean nothing. It´s about the people in charge, the people with power. They decide, not the laws. The law basically says: "Everything should benefit the citizens." And then the people in charge can do whatever they want, not really, but the law is almost pointless. When I was like 15 i believed in laws and fairness to, but when you get older you are forced to look at the reality.

Something like that.

Taxation is a necessary evil therefore we should have as little of it as possible. It should be restricted to funding the government to protect life and property from aggression (force), fraud at home, and attack from foreign enemies.

Contracts have to be enforced, and fraud has to be punished and or deterred. The U.S. government which takes forty percent of our income does neither of these particularly well (observe the frauds of Enron, the banking and mortgage crisis, the likes of Madoff etc.). What government does is regulate the minute portions of our lives, increase our costs of making a living and minding our business done in private. Worst of all is redistribution of income. The way to help the poor is to grow the economy, not to steal from the productive to give to the idle and the incompetent.

If we are going to have government we may have to spend a nickle or dime on the dollar to protect the rest. So be it. But we do not need a government that taxes us to the extent that all the money we earn from January 1 to the middle of May goes to the government. That is wretched excess. Even God Himself, never demanded more than a tenth, but our government takes four tenths or there about.

Here is what Pierre-Josheph Proudhon had to say about government and he is pretty much on the mark:

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. ... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

* Idée Générale de la Révolution au XIXe Siècle [The General Idea of the Revolution]


ruveyn

Thanks Sand for bringing up those questions for me to give you the free market approach to them.
Take your time to read them and get back at me with any refutations you might have.

That's a job for consenting individuals and private firms to work out deals and address their needs, without violence and no one being forced to live a lifestyle they don't want to live.
The State acts as a private firm, but has a monopoly on violence, you cannot unsubscribe from it and switch to other firms(well, you can switch, have private security lets say, but you still are forced to pay taxes).

We are humans and we can come up with better solutions without violence. Solutions that will break countries, states, counties and even cities apart, not in enmity but just secede for the good of our human diversity which is vast. To trade and interact freely except the management of their community which it would be agreed upon the residents of such community.
This escalating secession allows people to relocate with likeminded communities where the management varies(more security, less security, no fire department, eco friendly, religious, drugs aren't illegal, drugs are illegal, etc).




The lack of regulation in the market did not create the economic crises of the world.
Certain firms do mess up and/or scam people, but these firms in our time have been many times subsidized by the State(growing over the competitors and becoming monopolies) and bailed out or nationalized by the State in many cases shifting the debt of the firms into the the State and thus into the pockets of the tax payer.

In a total free market, the one who scams or sucks at making businesses, has to either, change its policies or continue on the road towards bankruptcy where they will have to close and be taken to a private court to have the damage they caused be compensated.




Criminal activities can be addressed by security firms that you can contract or stop contracting to do the job they need to do.
The firms that are good and do not abuse their own customers(like police does), would earn good reputation and get the most contracts.
Investigation, autopsy and even courts can be managed privately.

Today, crime grows with the State's punitive system.
They lock people up in cages to interact with other criminals.
They do not rehabilitate them and many serious crimes are not a reason to execute the defective human(you can rape several people, kill people, torture and still you can evade the death penalty, being locked in a cage, doing NOTHING, being supported by the taxes extorted from hard working people).

This "law" issue is one you people are scared about and solve it with the answer of the State.
Individuals do best when there is a profit incentive because they need a profit to help them remove the uneasiness they happen to have. The State cops get paid very low, it causes them to arrest people for victimless crimes and write tickets to anyone who makes a mistake just to get some bonuses at the end of the week. Fat slow and stupid people can be in the police do a sh***y job and maintain their job for a long time.



To cap this off, like I mentioned, the principle of violence is not what I agree upon unlike you people who like to say this or that "is a necessary evil".
I know self defense and infrastructure planning is needed but taking money out of people by intimidation is not the way to go for beings such as humans who can reason unlike the rest of the animals.

Have in mind this is a concept. That it can't come true tomorrow morning it does not mean that it's something we can't work on.

Last edited by ASPER on 12 Dec 2009, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is one enemy: pc yanks without balls. They should be ....

Since the number of American castrati is vanishingly small and those with personal computers is an even smaller group this can only be an expression of contempt for American women who are computer competent. Now that seems a grotesque prejudice at best.