Anarchist Roundtable

hetZaad · Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

hetZaad,

So I am a fool for not just "getting" your theory the first time through?

I am politely re-requesting the answers to my last three questions so that I can better understand your logic and the point you are trying to get across. I am patiently awaiting your response.

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

And by the way, I am FORCED to keep asking questions because everytime I make what I think is a point of fact which contradicts something you've said, you claim I am basing my principle on an application of faith. I see no way around asking questions as I apparently can not figure this out by thinking on my own.

As far as I understood things, governments were predicated on violence. Your claim to a "lawful government" means you disagree. I am simply asking you to explain how a lawful government could operate without violence, and how that would then still be a government and not be anarchy. I hope you're in a favor-granting mood because I honestly, 100%-sarcasm-free just do not understand this.

hetZaad · Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

Moe · Number of posts: 148 Registration date: 2007-10-25

hetZaad wrote:

The constitution must be set up with all of this in mind, i.e. civilized approaches to taxation,

Taxation is theft. What's a civilized approach to theft?

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

hetZaad's linked article on The Culture of Violence wrote:

It would unite all people and all peoples of the Earth. Society must then be governed by HUMANE law. As it is, society is ruled by force instead of law, let alone by humane laws.

But the alternate, constitutional system you propose, also will be ruled by force:

hetZaad wrote:

One of the things a truly intelligent constitution would keep in mind is that taxation of the people cannot be oppressive or exceed a certain level (a relatively low level).

and also here:

hetZaad wrote:

The constitution must be set up with all of this in mind, i.e. civilized approaches to taxation

Somehow, despite things like this, you're supposed to not be contradicting yourself when you simultaneously call for a "lawful" society without violence, and a government based upon violence in the form of taxation.

Somehow, you can call for "freedom," and yet I am obligated under your system to recognize the authority of your "lawful" constitutional government or else be crushed by it. My urgent request to be left alone and not be required (I'd use the word "force" here instead of opting for a euphemism for it like "required" but I'm scared you'll psychoanalyze my true, violent nature and put it on display for everyone again) to participate in your dream society of "lawful" constitutional government is, to you, a sign of madness and violence.

My desire to not use violence against others and to not have it used against me... is violence to you.

Your entire post just now was full of these claims to have things all reasoned out based upon empirical research and careful study of human beings and their nature (which you claim does not include violence, which leaves you unable to explain why some of the first horse-riding raiders in your fascinating "The Culture of Violence" came up with the idea to be violent and terrorize other people in the first place), but instead of sharing this proof with me or giving me even a brief summary to whet my whistle before I dive head-first into the nitty gritty, you just wave off my questions and concerns with a "tut-tut, too difficult and timely to explain now, but BELIEVE ME, I am right."

You do know what you're asking of me, in this case, don't you? You're asking for me to have FAITH in your argument... to settle my mind not on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence and reason in your favor but to simply take your word for it and believe. That's religion, buddy.

goofy-hetZaad wrote:

Once, I created a starship that could fly around the universe at the speed of light! How did I do this, you ask? Can you see it, you ask? Oh, well I'd love to *EDIT*tell you, but you see, it's so complicated to explain and I don't have time to explain it all to you right now or even demonstrate *EDIT*its powers for you right now, so you'll just have to believe me when I say I have done it and it works just as I say it does!

That's what you sound like, but replace the lightspeed-traveling starship with a constitutional government that you claim is "lawful" and will solve humanity's problems because it's so in tune with human nature. Your postings and off-site writings are simply rife with internal contradictions, unfounded assumptions and enormous errors in logic, and I have half a mind to take even more of my precious time than I already have to just start going through it line-by-line and quoting you, verbatim and then pointing out the awful mistakes you've been making, as I fear anything less obvious and to the point than that would give you just enough wiggle-room for your slimy exterior to slip around the confines of logic and reason.

And I'd take this opportunity to start psychologizing you at this point and point out the fact that you just engaged in CLASSIC defense-mechanism mentality in the form of avoidance when I gave you three simple, clear questions to respond to and instead of addressing these questions in an equally simple and clear manner which would either settle our debate once and for all, or else allow the discussion enough new information that it could progress somewhere higher, you went off the deep end and started asserting your claim to infallibility once more. I could point out that you further engage in defense-mechanism mentality when you impose on me a conversational context in which anytime I disagree with you or point out something which is contradictory to one of your stated assumptions, you claim that this is evidence that I am a violent, troubled religious person mindlessly responding according to my religious prejudices.

I could point all of that out, but I won't, because this isn't the place to be psychologizing one another like SM likes to do, which isn't tolerated at this forum. Instead, I'll engage your ideas by themselves and leave you and your psychological state out of the equation.

I wish to be left alone, and simultaneously I wish to leave others alone. I speak only for myself and no one else on this matter. You claim to speak for all of humanity and propose that you institute a "lawful" constitutional government which will rule over me and, like every other government, will enforce its lawful laws through violence and support itself financially through taxation, which is violence. You claim, in spite of this, that I am a violent person and you are off the hook on such a charge.

That's ridiculous.

My Chinese delivery is here. I'll be invalidating your theory line-for-line after I finish choking down some beef lo mein and vegetable fried rice.

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

Moe wrote:

Taxation is theft. What's a civilized approach to theft?

Moe, thanks. I thought I was the only person confused by this notion of "civilized taxation," which, based off of hetZaad's previous explanations and definitions I took to mean "lawful taxation," where "lawful" means "corresponding to the Laws of Nature."

hetZaad · Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

hetZaad, et al,

Just finished my noodles and meat dinner ('twas greasy!). I was going to get back to my promise to smash your arguments line-for-line and then I see you've posted this recent beauty where you acknowledge that your "lawful" constitutional government will, in fact, be engaging in acts of violence against those individuals who choose not to recognize its authority and its tax levies.

So, now you've sunk your own argument and I don't have to bother! Thanks, I'm going to go do some of the reading I've been wanting to do.

Nutter-Butter: makes a delicious, sweet, peanut-buttery cracker snack; not much of a debate partner.

hetZaad · Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

hetZaad wrote:

If you hold a gun to my head and say "You have to choose, either i kill your wife or i kill your daughter" and then suggest that the one YOU shoot is on MY conscious, that's fucked up.
YOU are the one responsible for the situation.

Even if you say "And if you don't choose i'll kill both" and i refuse to play along and you actually DO kill both it STILL isn't MY fault that they died. YOU are then the killer. YOU, YOU YOU! Violent authorities are always pushing the blame on other people, that's what they do. That doesn't change the ultimate truth about the situation.

Just so, using roads is human. If the government accepts the responsibility of taking care of roads [which it certainly doesn't have to] then all of the effects coming from that are THE GOVERNMENT'S responsibility. They can't turn around and say I'm to blame for THEIR failings. I didn't ask for this shit, it was forced on me.

Frankly, your desire to make little of such governmental/authoritarian abuse is disturbing. Alice Miller explains where such diseased tendencies come from.

You missed one. And another before that, a couple really. I mean, if you're gonna clean up your mess, be thorough. clown