If you don't like the USPS, use FedEx, or UPS, or DHL, or the millions of other available options. No one is forced to use the United States Postal Service.

Quote :

"It would be well within the constitution for privatization of the system with rural areas served through explicit subsidy. "

You would bitch and moan about subsidies being provided for that rural service.

Also, the USPS is the rural delivery system for companies like DHL, UPS and FedEx.

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 4:02:31 PM

Quote :

"I welcome the alternative suggestion. We know what exists and works. What are you suggesting that will work better? How do you enforce laws without the threat of violence?"

It's not the enforcement of laws that is the problem, it's the forced support of the institution that enforces them. I already mentioned that defensive force is justified. It's aggressive force that is wrong.

Quote :

"You're diluting your message. We're not the ones saying that non-government is preferable to government. You are."

No, I'm saying that neither is okay, because they are the exact same thing. You're claiming that institutionalized aggressive force is somehow justifiable whereas force outside of this system is not. What imaginary magic powers give certain people the right to use violence against innocent people when it is wrong for anyone else? Stealing by the government is not any different than stealing by anyone else, unless you want to consider that they provide some services in return. The mafia operates in the same way.

11/17/2010 4:16:53 PM

Quote :

"It's not the enforcement of laws that is the problem, it's the forced support of the institution that enforces them. I already mentioned that defensive force is justified. It's aggressive force that is wrong."

lol. Explain to me how we have a system of laws without forced support of the institution that enforces them. How would citizen A opt out of the system without endangering Citizen B?

11/17/2010 4:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me how we have a system of laws without forced support of the institution that enforces them."

Simply by allowing for competition and voluntarily supported "governmental" organizations, or organizations that offer defense and protection.

Quote :

"How would citizen A opt out of the system without endangering Citizen B?"

What do you mean by opt out of the system? Citizen A can choose not to use any defense agency, but that does not mean they would not be held accountable for their actions against Citizen B.

Really, the logistics of how a voluntary society would operate are beyond the scope of this thread. These are subjects covered by large books. But the point is that once people begin respecting individual rights and rejecting violence instead of encouraging it, society will move beyond the current violent system.

11/17/2010 4:38:10 PM

Quote :

"Citizen A can choose not to use any defense agency, but that does not mean they would not be held accountable for their actions against Citizen B."

So Citizen B's defense agency has the authority to act violently upon Citizen A? By what right? What stops Citizen B's defense agency from coming up with and violently enforcing rules that Citizen A finds unjust?

11/17/2010 4:41:27 PM

Quote :

"So Citizen B's defense agency has the authority to act violently upon Citizen A? By what right? What stops Citizen B's defense agency from coming up with and violently enforcing rules that Citizen A finds unjust?"

What stops the current government from coming up with and violently enforcing rules that citizens find unjust?

11/17/2010 4:44:03 PM

Only the threat of Revolution really. Good thing that's expressly protected by the very same Constitution and our ability to assemble and educate our populace to the same.

You're the one suggesting that smaller proto-governments would do better than our large government. We're asking you why.

I'm asking how things would be at all different if you replaced the government's authority with private defense agencies.

11/17/2010 4:48:18 PM

Quote :

"You're the one suggesting that smaller proto-governments would do better than our large government. We're asking you why."

Because, like you said, it's always the threat of revolution that is necessary to keep them in check. More precisely, it's the threat of individuals defending themselves against injustice. That's the only way to ever effectively guard against abuse of power. The constitution has no real power. The government has ignored it repeatedly and will continue to do so. The question is, why do you think it is easier to defend ourselves against a massive monopoly government than many smaller voluntary governments? If one starts to get out of line and do things that the members of society do not agree with, they will lose the business of their clients, just like any other business. They can't just continue to take money from people by threatening them and continue to go on ignoring the wishes of the people. Additionally, there will be other agencies to turn to for protection if one becomes abusive.

But in the end, it always comes down to the citizens to defend themselves and their neighbors, no matter what form of government is in place. So if that's the case, why would smaller voluntary "governments" that are easier to keep in check and do not have to perpetrate violence against innocent people just to exist not be preferable?

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 4:58:10 PM

Because we've seen (and currently see) real world examples where smaller proto-governments generally has been ultra-shitty for the general populace. Additionally, the United States is not the only country on the planet. Would national defense also be handled independently by each proto-government?

Without a governing body strong enough to threaten everyone equally, the strongest proto-government will simply violently enforce it's law on whatever citizens it can and take from them whatever they wish. Is that how it happens now? Sure, but it happens everywhere evenly and to a lesser severity and extent. That's the trade-off. I don't have to worry if I entered Defense Agency Alpha's protection zone and am now subject to their arbitrary rules. I don't have to amass a giant stockpile of guns to protect myself from whatever Defense Agency feels like taking my property unjustly. I don't have to worry that some civilian crime organization could somehow get more powerful than the Defense Agency I pay and then totally invalidate the system. In short, smaller proto-governments would be chaos.

We actually live in one of the best countries to live in on the planet, and you act like it's a fucking gulag.

11/17/2010 5:10:08 PM

Quote :

"We actually live in one of the best countries to live in on the planet, and you act like it's a fucking gulag."

The reason he does this is through a few small logical missteps. One of them you have noted, that being that he fails to quantify violence. He believes he is able to do this by using the premise, "all aggressive violence is wrong". It seems like a simple enough and moral premise, but we are able to reject it. If someone kills your mother, is it moral to punish him? Most would say yes, but under the premise of "all aggressive violence is wrong", one would not be able to do anything. An act as such is not "self defense", thus by his definition, it is aggressive violence. Suppose someone has already stolen something from you. Is it right to take it back? Such an act would not be considered self defense, thus aggressive violence. Suppose someone snuck in a movie theater, could you throw them out?

11/17/2010 6:45:19 PM

^ Of course, all of that is untrue. If someone takes something from you, they have an obligation to make it right (restitution). This would apply to taking property as well as members of your family. And seeing that a movie theater is private property, they have the right to remove anyone they wish from their property. These ideas really aren't that complicated, it's amazing how hard they are for you to understand.

11/17/2010 10:50:09 PM

If someone breaks into you home and rapes your daughter, do you really believe they'll voluntarily make restitution to you? So then, how do you force them to make restitution without the threat of violence?

11/17/2010 11:18:27 PM

Quote :

"If someone takes something from you, they have an obligation to make it right"

Ah see here is your "no true scotsman". So if they do not fulfill their "obligation to make it right" you are able to use "aggressive violence", except now I'm sure you a different term that is much murkier, maybe "restitutional violence" which could probably describe what the government does if you owe them taxes. Your weaselly terms are beginning to unravel. And I find it strange that it's ok if I "make things right" if you take something from my brother, but it magically becomes wrong if a government "makes things right" if you take something from my brother.

Quote :

"And seeing that a movie theater is private property, they have the right to remove anyone they wish from their property."

So then we are able to use "aggressive violence" within our own property? Couldn't it then be argued that US Government reserves the same right within it's borders?

11/17/2010 11:35:53 PM

All of the situations you are talking about involve another person initiating violence. As I have already mentioned, using force to defend life, liberty, and property is justified. I have never claimed that all force is wrong. What you are referring to is defensive force. If someone steals from another person, and they have to use force to get back what is owed to them, they are defending their property, and the other person is the aggressor. I have no problem with that. If you're really having a hard time understanding this, maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

11/18/2010 9:21:19 AM

Libertarians HATE Nate Dogg and Warren G. "Regulatoooooors, mount up!"

11/18/2010 9:35:04 AM

Quote :

"I find it strange that it's ok if I "make things right" if you take something from my brother, but it magically becomes wrong if a government "makes things right" if you take something from my brother."

Kris never considered the possibility of a "necessary evil." It would be best if the thief gave back the stuff voluntarily, or never stole it. It is not good when a thief is punished, it is merely the lesser evil. Similarly, it would be good if the Government did not tax, as there would be no need for violence, but just as with the thief, since the Government is committing the evil of taxation, it is a lesser evil for the police to enforce the law equally and punish illegal tax evasion.

11/18/2010 9:42:21 AM

Quote :

"Kris never considered the possibility of a "necessary evil." It would be best if the thief gave back the stuff voluntarily, or never stole it. It is not good when a thief is punished, it is merely the lesser evil."

Actually, I don't think defensive force is evil at all. The evil is the the aggressive force. Defensive force is actually a good thing, because it attempts to restore to the person who was aggressed against that which is rightfully theirs.

11/18/2010 10:23:44 AM

Quote :

"All of the situations you are talking about involve another person initiating violence."

That's not true, I could take something from you without being violent at all.
Furthermore, you ignored my two points on how these could be used to justify taxation.

Quote :

"Kris never considered the possibility of a "necessary evil." "

I didn't, you failed to read the thread.

11/18/2010 11:00:19 AM

Quote :

"That's not true, I could take something from you without being violent at all."

Taking property from someone without their permission is an act of aggression. The thief is the aggressor. That doesn't mean the person stolen from can go kill the aggressor, but they have a right to get their stuff back and can use the minimum amount of force necessary to do it. It's a very simple concept.

Quote :

"Furthermore, you ignored my two points on how these could be used to justify taxation."

Is your first point that the government is taking back stolen property through taxation? If so, I fail to see how that is the case.

To the second point, first of all, does the US Government own the entire country and all that is within it? That is called communism, which supposedly is not the type of government we have. Furthermore, even if you claim they own all the land, that does not give them the right to steal from those on that land. If you come onto my property, I have the right ask you to leave, and even escort you off if you refuse, but that doesn't mean I can take everything in your pockets while I am at it.

11/18/2010 11:13:04 AM

Quote :

"Taking property from someone without their permission is an act of aggression."

I'm sorry, I didn't keep up with the term you've currently backpedalled to. First is was "violence", then "violence or the threat of violence", then "aggressive force", now we're on "act of aggression".

Quote :

"Is your first point that the government is taking back stolen property through taxation? If so, I fail to see how that is the case."

The government is taking restitution by punishing tax evasion, the same way I would be punished if I got on a plane I didn't buy a ticket for.

Quote :

"To the second point, first of all, does the US Government own the entire country and all that is within it? That is called communism"

No it's not, that's not at all what communism is.

Quote :

"even if you claim they own all the land, that does not give them the right to steal from those on that land. If you come onto my property, I have the right ask you to leave, and even escort you off if you refuse, but that doesn't mean I can take everything in your pockets while I am at it."

Every good and service is a product of capital and labor. If the government has dominion over all capital, it would be able to do what is neccesary.

11/18/2010 1:16:08 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, I didn't keep up with the term you've currently backpedalled to. First is was "violence", then "violence or the threat of violence", then "aggressive force", now we're on "act of aggression"."

It's okay, I know you have a hard time following simple discussions.

Here is where we were defining our terms:

Quote :

"A more accurate term than "violence" in this discussion would probably be "aggression", because I would include the threat of violence against peaceful people. Basically in talking about violence perpetrated by the state, I mean any use of aggressive physical force or threat of force in order to compel an individual to comply against their will. For instance, if I point a gun at you and tell you to give me some money, that would count. Even if I don't actually shoot you. However, force used in defense of one's life or property would not be aggression."

Quote :

"The government is taking restitution by punishing tax evasion, the same way I would be punished if I got on a plane I didn't buy a ticket for."

But tax evasion is only aggression if the money that you are not giving them is rightfully theirs in the first place. You can't just take restitution for whatever you want. If I rob you at gunpoint and take 50% of everything you have, that's not restitution unless you've taken it from me first. That's just theft.

Quote :

"No it's not, that's not at all what communism is."

Please explain to me how all property within the territory of the United States belonging to the US Government (meaning no private property at all) is "not at all what communism is".

11/18/2010 1:22:41 PM

Quote :

"It's okay, I know you have a hard time following simple discussions."

It's not the discussion, it's the "no scotsman", "no true scotsman", "no really true scotsman", kinds of terms you keep juggling and backpedaling around.

Quote :

"But tax evasion is only aggression if the money that you are not giving them is rightfully theirs in the first place."

Define "rightfully theirs".

Quote :

"Please explain to me how all property within the territory of the United States belonging to the US Government (meaning no private property at all) is "not at all what communism is"."

Communism is the lack of ownership, not neccesarily just "no private property".

11/18/2010 3:06:18 PM

I haven't juggled any terms or backpedaled on anything. The quote I just provided was near the beginning of this discussion, explaining very clearly what constitutes aggression. You're just looking for an escape route by going on about the terms because you can't argue the actual point. Using aggression against peaceful individuals to get what you want is wrong. Use whatever terms you want, but that's not going to change. It's the reason slavery is wrong. It's the reason theft is wrong. We all know it, even if you don't want to admit it.

Quote :

"Communism is the lack of ownership, not neccesarily just "no private property"."

No, communism is state ownership of the means of production. So who owns the property in this country? Does private property exist in the US? Is any land owned by individuals or does it all belong to the US Government? What about tools or other capital? You really are stretching for some kind of rebuttal, aren't you?

11/18/2010 3:35:37 PM

We're already convinced that our government is exactly like the Mafia and you can't exactly opt out of it. You don't have to convince us of that.

What you have to convince us of is how smaller, less structured mafias would be better especially in light of real world examples of government failure awesomely shitting on the quality of life of the citizens therein.

Quote :

"Using aggression against peaceful individuals to get what you want is wrong. "

When "what you want" is the enforcement of just laws that benefit the whole, it is no longer wrong.

11/18/2010 3:45:19 PM

Quote :

"The quote I just provided was near the beginning of this discussion, explaining very clearly what constitutes aggression."

No, at the beginning of the discussion you used "violence", then you adjusted to "threat of violence" then you went to "aggressive force" and then to "aggression". You've backpedalled terms the entire thread.

Quote :

"Using aggression against peaceful individuals to get what you want is wrong. Use whatever terms you want, but that's not going to change. It's the reason slavery is wrong. It's the reason theft is wrong. We all know it, even if you don't want to admit it."

Again you use terms that you'll have to backpedal. If I peacefully walk into a bar without paying cover, and I get forcefully removed, that's not wrong, right? If a bank forcefully removes a peaceful family from their house because they fail to pay thier mortgage, that's not wrong, right? Somehow putting people in jail when they refuse to pay the government is somehow so magically much more "aggressive" and "violent" than when a bar, or a bank, or any other private entity does so.

Quote :

"No, communism is state ownership of the means of production."

That's socialism.

Quote :

"So who owns the property in this country?"

There are different levels of ownership. No one owns property to the point that they don't have to answer to anyone with it, but there is some level of ownership. Ownership is a legal construct, and the government defines the laws.

11/18/2010 3:45:44 PM

Quote :

"No, at the beginning of the discussion you used "violence", then you adjusted to "threat of violence" then you went to "aggressive force" and then to "aggression". You've backpedalled terms the entire thread."

Because they're all closely related. You can quibble on about how I'm changing terms, but they all involve someone exerting their will on another individual using force (or the threat of force, which isn't really any different). So unless you're really so dense that you actually don't understand what I'm saying, quit trying to confuse the matter. If you need a better definition, I provided that also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Quote :

"If I peacefully walk into a bar without paying cover, and I get forcefully removed, that's not wrong, right? If a bank forcefully removes a peaceful family from their house because they fail to pay thier mortgage, that's not wrong, right? Somehow putting people in jail when they refuse to pay the government is somehow so magically much more "aggressive" and "violent" than when a bar, or a bank, or any other private entity does so."

If you "peacefully walk into a bar" which requires that you pay a cover, then you are aggressing against the owner of that bar and must either pay or leave. Just as before, the owner can remove anyone he wants from his property. If a person does not fulfill their contract with another person or organization, the contract stipulates the consequences. If someone does not pay their mortgage, the home then becomes property of the bank, and they can remove anyone they wish from their property. The difference with the government is that they have no legitimate claim to what they require people to pay. Do you really not get this concept? I think you are just stubborn and like to go around in circles. I probably should stop wasting my time responding to you.

11/18/2010 4:27:01 PM

Ummm, you are bound by the laws and protections of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of the United States. No contract required.

You can actually opt-out if you wish.

11/18/2010 4:36:30 PM

Quote :

"Ummm, you are bound by the laws and protections of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of the United States. No contract required."

Imaginary contracts cannot be used to justify using violence against others. That is a ridiculous justification. Anyone could say the same thing in order to claim control over others. It basically amounts to, "you have to do this because I said so".

11/18/2010 4:58:42 PM

Says who? You?

I say that social contracts can be used to justify violence upon others as long as the justification is the enforcement of just laws to uphold the obligations of said social contract. There.

Which by the way is further validated by the possibility of rebellion.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 5:03:54 PM

Quote :

"If you "peacefully walk into a bar" which requires that you pay a cover, then you are aggressing against the owner of that bar and must either pay or leave."

So simply walking into a place is an act of aggression? Why isn't living in the US but not paying your taxes an act of aggression? What's the difference?

Quote :

"The difference with the government is that they have no legitimate claim to what they require people to pay."

Why don't they have a legitimate claim? They are the government of that area. It is land that thier laws have dominion over. Don't like it? Vote with your dollars and feet and go elsewhere. There's nothing mandating you live in the US, and if you do not live here, you certainly aren't required to pay our taxes (other than excise and such).

Quote :

"Do you really not get this concept?"

I think you're the one not getting it, that's why you are forced to backpedal, juggle semantics, and all other sorts of mental gymnastics.

Quote :

"Imaginary contracts cannot be used to justify using violence against others. That is a ridiculous justification. Anyone could say the same thing in order to claim control over others. It basically amounts to, "you have to do this because I said so"."

It's no different than the idea of private property. The US has dominion over this area and the ability to enforce it's rules. In the same way you have an additional level of dominion over your property and the ability to enforce additional rules.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2010 5:08:12 PM

Quote :

"So simply walking into a place is an act of aggression?"

Yes, if you're trespassing against the owner's permission.

Quote :

"It's no different than the idea of private property. The US has dominion over this area and the ability to enforce it's rules. In the same way you have an additional level of dominion over your property and the ability to enforce additional rules."

I have already explained that you do not have a right to rob a trespasser, you only have the right to remove them from your property. So if the US Government does own (or have dominion over) the territory known as the United States, then they can kick everyone out, but do not have any legitimate claim to those people's property. However, I do not think this is the case at all, since people do own land and property. The government has no legitimate claim to any of it, they just take it at their convenience because really, what is an individual going to do to stop them?

11/18/2010 5:29:16 PM

You're making up this invisible right to own property and saying it is somehow more legitimate than the invisible right for a government to enforce its laws within its borders and on its citizenry.

Neither concept is material. Your house is yours only by some imaginary right of ownership. I'm not saying that ownership doesn't exist, but you can't just handwave away government sovereignty within its borders on the basis that it's imaginary without hurting your case at the same time.

11/18/2010 5:39:53 PM

Quote :

"The government is taking restitution by punishing tax evasion, the same way I would be punished if I got on a plane I didn't buy a ticket for."

I'm pretty sure no airline could do anything to you. Their recourse is to make you leave the plane, not bill you for the flight. For them to sue you they would be limited to their damages, which I believe would be only the slight amount of fuel consumed by you being on board, nothing near the ticket price.

11/18/2010 6:17:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes, if you're trespassing against the owner's permission"

So if you are in a place that is under someone's dominion, you must follow their rules or they can use force to enforce them? It sounds like we're starting to get towards the definition of a government.

Quote :

"I have already explained that you do not have a right to rob a trespasser, you only have the right to remove them from your property."

You stated earlier that if someone did not pay for a good or service, the other party had the ability to take restitution.

Quote :

"So if the US Government does own (or have dominion over) the territory known as the United States, then they can kick everyone out, but do not have any legitimate claim to those people's property."

So if I walk in a china store, and break something expensive, the owner does not have the right to get restitution for that good, only throw me out?

Quote :

"The government has no legitimate claim to any of it, they just take it at their convenience because really, what is an individual going to do to stop them?"

They have just as legitimate of a claim to have dominion over it as you do to own any sort of property? All real capital has always existed, and only became owned when someone arbitrarily claimed ownership of it. How is that different than a government arbitrarily claiming dominion over an area?

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure no airline could do anything to you."

I'm pretty sure you'd get arrested.

Quote :

"For them to sue you they would be limited to their damages, which I believe would be only the slight amount of fuel consumed by you being on board, nothing near the ticket price."

Then you do not believe in the ability of the market to price?
The cost of an airplane ticket is far more than just the gas it takes to fly from one place to another. It costs to have a plane, a crew, a terminal, etc. All that crap adds up to the price of an airplane ticket minus profit, and I doubt profit is that large considering the thin profit margins for the airline companies.

11/18/2010 6:55:46 PM

Only because the TSA would probably be sending you to Guantanamo for domestic terrorism. If it was a private bus company, then like I said, their recourse is to make you leave. You only get arrested if you refuse. I can't be made to pay because we have no contract as I never agreed to pay for the trip.

11/18/2010 7:27:00 PM

Quote :

"Only because the TSA would probably be sending you to Guantanamo for domestic terrorism. If it was a private bus company, then like I said, their recourse is to make you leave. You only get arrested if you refuse. I can't be made to pay because we have no contract as I never agreed to pay for the trip."

Fine, use the china store example I gave.

11/18/2010 7:28:41 PM

Quote :

"So if I walk in a china store, and break something expensive, the owner does not have the right to get restitution for that good, only throw me out? "

Ok, even you can't be this stupid. Even if you don't agree with his premise that trespassing is aggression, the act of damaging someone else's property clearly is.

11/18/2010 8:58:46 PM

I would say aggression requires intent, it could be done by accident.

11/18/2010 9:32:54 PM

Quote :

"I can't be made to pay because we have no contract as I never agreed to pay for the trip."

That might be the dumbest thing ever posted in defense of libertarianism.

11/18/2010 10:06:10 PM

Quote :

"How is that different than a government arbitrarily claiming dominion over an area?"

It's not different, but that's tyranny and our "democracy" is supposed to stand for something other than that. Supposedly this is a government of "consent", but really it's not any different than any other tyrannical government if they "arbitrarily claim dominion" over their territory.

I really don't think this is worth going into anymore, because you're impossible to get through to and I think we agree on what government is and what they do. I just think it's sad that you understand it and still support it so adamantly. Where we disagree is that I don't want to use force to control my neighbors, but you like being able to use the violence of the state to force your will on others. And for that, you're pathetic.

11/18/2010 10:35:57 PM

Quote :

"It's not different, but that's tyranny and our "democracy" is supposed to stand for something other than that."

Democracy is a political form of government, it has nothing to do with the philosophical right to governance, so much for that backpedaling.

Quote :

"I really don't think this is worth going into anymore, because you're impossible to get through to and I think we agree on what government is and what they do. "

We do not agree. You will arbitrarily deny rights to a "government" simply because it is a government, which is why you ignored my post.

11/19/2010 12:44:08 AM

You don't believe in individual rights. You start from the assumption that the government owns us. After all, it has the military, it has the police, and it calls the shots. Any action we could possibly take is not a right, but a privilege granted to us by government. From that perspective, it makes sense that we could deny government its rights. You're a statist. No surprise there, we all know this to be true. The preservation of the state is of supreme importance; liberty can and should be infringed upon by the state when the ends justify the means, as determined by politicians, lawyers, bankers, and corporations.

11/19/2010 1:12:16 AM

Guess what the only thing maintaining our individual rights is? Did you guess protection by our laws and their enforcement? And bingo was his name-o.

The government doesn't own us, but it necessarily has the power to enforce our laws. Laws which are written by ordinary people that other ordinary people freely elect btw. Without this power, without the threat of aggression, violence, whatever, your individual rights would almost certainly be impinged upon.

Unless of course you had the guns to protect it, in which case what would stop you from impinging on others' individual rights?

Now don't get me wrong, I totally agree that we have many unjust laws on the books which don't belong there. But that certainly isn't reason enough to abandon the government or to suggest that every act of enforcing our laws is unwarranted aggression.

Quote :

"It's not different, but that's tyranny and our "democracy" is supposed to stand for something other than that. Supposedly this is a government of "consent", but really it's not any different than any other tyrannical government if they "arbitrarily claim dominion" over their territory."

Please just leave. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html Go somewhere where the land isn't arbitrarily claimed by a country or state. There is absolutely nothing keeping you here. You're not forced to stay. It's not a tyranny.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2010 1:21:00 AM

Quote :

"You start from the assumption that the government owns us."

It doesn't own us, it has dominion over us, as long as we are inside its borders.

11/19/2010 8:34:20 AM

^^^^ I ignored the rest of your post because you didn't say anything that you haven't said before and that I haven't addressed before. I have no desire to keep going around in circles with you.

11/19/2010 9:08:40 AM

How mature of you. I would have guessed you don't want to reply because you've become rather desperate and began grasping for straws.

11/19/2010 9:55:05 AM