TheAgitator.com
From the Files of “Stuff You Can’t Make Up.”
Sunday, December 7th, 2003Your Congress, at work. Included in the new year-end spending bill, $50 million to build a rain forest…in Iowa. And $225,000 earmarked for no other reason than so one Congressman can clear his conscience at taxpayer expense:
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nevada, says his swimming-pool project has more to do with polliwogs than pork.He says he and some friends were responsible for clogging the drain with tadpoles, causing the pool to be temporarily shut down in the 1950s. He expects Congress to approve the $225,000 to repair the 61-year-old pool in the working-class neighborhood where he grew up in Sparks.
“I have an enormous guilty conscience for putting frogs in the swimming pool when I was about 10 years old,” he said.
Like others who defend the federal money they secure for pet projects, Gibbons is not ashamed to elbow his way to the federal trough on behalf of his constituents.
After all, he reasons, everybody else in Congress does it. And if he didn’t, the money would go to somebody else’s district.
“This is a very meritorious project, one that I am not embarrassed about at all,” he said in a telephone interview Thursday from Las Vegas.
Both projects, incidentally, are sponsored by (sarcasm) tax-cutting, limited government Republicans (/sarcasm).
UPDATE: The more I think about Rep. Gibbons, the angrier I get. No, $225,000 isn’t a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But why the hell should we let him get away with this? He’s using almost a quarter million dollars of our money so he can feel better about a stunt he pulled as a kid? Fix the pool with your own damned money, Congressman. It’s all the more aggravating that he isn’t the least bit embarassed about it.
I’m thinking we ought to do something. I’m just not sure what.
Any ideas?
Can we consider Gibbons’ words as a confession and, if so, shouldn’t the “authorities” act accordingly? But of course he’ll be spared that embarrassment by the statute of limitations. As Radley says “Fix the pool with your damn money, Congressman.” Oh, that’s right, he believes he IS using his own damned money.
Maybe Congress will give me some money to give the retarded girl who I flipped off when I was 12 years old.
Is there a statute of limitations on civil suits?
Find the dems in his district and start a flyer or whisper campaign ( one of carl roves tricks) like he has an illigitimate negro child from an ex mistree
How about writing our congressmen (assuming we don’t live in this gibbons’ district) and tell them to vote AGAINST THIS pork barrel bullshit!
P.S. Isn’t a Gibbon some kind of monkey or something? Seems appropriate for a congressman.
Maybe someone should let a few thousand frogs loose in his offices.
I’m sure he’d understand.
I like Gil’s idea. In retrospect, much better than my bomb threat. :(
Gibbons are actually apes.
They are my favorite apes, whereas Bush is my least favorite.
In a republic there is no your stuff and my stuff, there is just our stuff and representatives are elected to decide what should be done with our stuff.
Gibbons is acting reasonably, given the rules.
Personally, I’m not planning on paying my taxes next year. I’ll probably also try to steal from the federal government whenever possible.
“Gibbons is acting reasonably, given the rules.”
Right to the point again, John.
The easy way to clear your conscience
John Kennedy- Try again…in a republic, there is yours and mine, not OURS. This is NOT a democracy, never has been, and never should be. Actually, I think you’re actually thinking more socialist or communist. You probably vote for Republicans, and therefore also lack the ability to read. Anyone that can read the Constituion, and cares about it, could figure out that what you said was a load of complete idiocy. What Gibbons is doing is (though on a much smaller scale) a lot worse than Medicare or Energy spending bills…he’s blatantly throwing our money away.
” Try again…in a republic, there is yours and mine, not OURS.”
Whose land is this? If it isn’t OURS then there’s no basis for the constitution. What’s the basis of the power to tax if this isn’t OUR land?
(James Bowman: Yes.)
I have never understood why some of my allies get excited about the distinction between direct and indirect democracy; I prefer to draw a line between limited and unlimited powers. This federal republic’s constitution – you know, the dusty old thing that gives it conditional permission to exist – specifies the purposes to which “Our” resources may be put; and I for one can’t see how repairing a swimming pool and/or soothing a legislator’s conscience is among them.
Chris is confused. He’s talking about the Constitution like it actually means something.
FDR started this whole spend-as-much-as-it-takes-if-it-makes-things-better form of govt.
John Kennedy: Gibbons is acting reasonably, given the rules.
Bread and Circuses. ;-)
Chris writes:
John Kennedy- Try again…in a republic, there is yours and mine, not OURS. You probably vote for Republicans, and therefore also lack the ability to read.
Uhmm. I’m pretty sure JT Kennedy doesn’t vote (he’s an anarchist with a capitalist stripe). Also I’m pretty sure he HAS read the Constitution and found it lacking. See http://www.no-treason.com
Go easy on the vapid namecalling Chris.
-sed
Hey Seditious Nick,
What is the specific difference between an Anarchist and a Feudalist?
… because I canâ??t see any difference.
Serpent: welcome back from your temporary haitus.
JFK there is mine and yours and the govt. only gets a limited, jealously guarded portion of my preexisting authority. Everything is not up for grabs. That’s what it means to have rights.
This, however, is more like a misuse of funds. Govt. can tax us for our commong benefit; but righting some congressman’s conscience hardly qualifies.
Good find Radley.
“JFK there is mine and yours and the govt. only gets a limited, jealously guarded portion of my preexisting authority.”
If it’s so well guarded then how does this happen umpteen thousand times a year?
“Govt. can tax us for our common benefit; but righting some congressman’s conscience hardly qualifies.”
Who is to decide what our common benefit is? Your duly elected congressmen.
Is Radley too smart to vote for thieves or does he just want a better class of thieves than Jim Gibbons?
I’ve yet to see anyone blogged out of office, but maybe some libertarian would actually step up to the plate and win an election some day.
I get the feeling that libertarians believed that this version of the “free market” GOP would carry their torch in Washington. Give me a break! Even liberal Democrats are gasping at the maniacal, unchecked spending sprees and legally-enforced corporate welfare.
Put your money where your mouth is.
John Kennedy: Who is to decide what our common benefit is? Your duly elected congressmen?
So how exactly is Anarchy/Feudalism a solution to the problem?
Or is wishful thinking the solution to all of lifeâ??s problems?
Anarchy = The theory that ALL forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced with voluntary association of cooperative groups.
Democracy = A form of government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives.
Isnâ??t a Democracy just a voluntary association of cooperative Individuals?
“Isnâ??t a Democracy just a voluntary association of cooperative Individuals?”
No, I’m not volunteering and you still bill me.
A market is voluntary, nobody tells you what you have to buy or how much. If you don’t want anything from WalMart they won’t bill you. Everyone who buys something from WalMart or sells something to WalMart or works for WalMart does so by choice and can terminate that relationship at any time and keep all their own stuff. See the difference?
Chris -
“You probably vote for Republicans, and therefore also lack the ability to read”
Why do you guys always insist on de-valuing your argument by issuing moronic statements like that? You may have had a legitimate point, but most won’t bother reading past a stupid comment like that.
I, however, DID finish reading your post, if for no other reason than to prove to myself that I can indeed read.
A bit of unsolicited advice – Do not lecture anyone about another’s “load of complete idiocy” ever again; especially immediately after laying down a steaming pile of your own.
John Kennedy: No, I’m not volunteering and you still bill me.
I am pretty sure that The United States of America was here before You were.
You volunteered to stay here.
Either that or you used your â??free willâ? to volunteer to be born here.
John Kennedy: A market is voluntary, nobody tells you what you have to buy or how much. If you don’t want anything from WalMart they won’t bill you. Everyone who buys something from WalMart or sells something to WalMart or works for WalMart does so by choice and can terminate that relationship at any time and keep all their own stuff. See the difference?
Living some where is voluntary, nobody tells you what property you have to buy or how much property to buy. If you don’t want anything from America, then donâ??t live there, and they won’t bill you. Everyone who lives in America or sells something to America or works for America does so by choice and can terminate that relationship at any time (and keep all their own stuff) by moving to a different country.
JTK,
You volunteer based on your decision to stay.
Whether you like it, or not, the land on which you live is subject to the laws of a government that came into existence long before you arrived. You don’t have to love this country, or our taxes, or our laws… and fortunately you are able to change them if enough people agree with you. However, you are obligated to abide by them. You are also free to leave any time you like…. it’s been done before.
Additionally, you do gain benefit from the commons that you are billed for. Access to relatively clean air and water, a thriving economy that enables you to both earn a living and still have free time to spend with your family, or posting on the internet. This wouldn’t necessarily be possible without the security that comes with at least SOME government regulation.
I agree with you that government spending is out of control, especially pork spending. The absense of government is not the answer.
“You volunteered to stay here.”
It’s obvious to everyone else how that begs the question, right?
“Whether you like it, or not, the land on which you live is subject to the laws of a government that came into existence long before you arrived.”
How? Via the constitution? How were the inhabitants of this territory subject to what came into existence *after* they arrived? Who was entitled to tell them to comply or leave?
Whether it’s “legal” or not, the actions on the part of this man are morally fractured at best. He screwed up as a kid, and fully acknowledges that – great, a politician that admits a mistake is something we don’t see often. The problem though, is the solution. This is a gentleman that I assume make somewhere upwards of 150k per year, and probably has quite a healthy sum of his *own* money. If he truly felt so bad about this pool, his actions, etc, he should write a check, from his *OWN* bank account, and clear the matter. Save the 250k or whatever it ends up being for a truly worthwhile cause – education, senior citizen issues, small business loans, etc.
“It’s obvious to everyone else how that begs the question, right? ”
Obviously he volunteered to have Jim Gibbons steal from him. He volunteered to pay for war in Iraq. He volunteered to pay to jail drug users.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
“Whether you like it, or not, the land on which you live is subject to the laws of a government that came into existence long before you arrived. You don’t have to love this country, or our taxes, or our laws… and fortunately you are able to change them if enough people agree with you. However, you are obligated to abide by them.”
I am not morally obligated to abide by them and if you think you are then you have no moral standing to object when they sell your ass into slavery, or worse.
Our markets aren’t voluntary at all. They are legally tilted toward huge businesses and skewed by political influence. Wal-Mart, in fact, is a prime example of a company that uses its wealth to influence the laws that affect our markets.
Find some old codger in a small town and ask them about choice, price and the free market. My money says they’d agree that Wal-Mart is an evil which worked hard to make itself necessary.
It’s true that no one tells you what to buy, but if you only have one source to buy from then how is that voluntary?
Jumped the tracks, sliding down the ravine, big fireball.
Hey, let them fix the pool, then one of us go throw a bunch of tadpoles in the pool til it needs $225,000 worth of repair.
Admit to it and wait for the reprecussions of your actions, bethcha your results might vary.
Yeah, I have an idea, Radley:
Stop fucking paying for this bullshit.
What in Christ’s name is wrong with you people? Why on earth don’t you know that they will keep doing this as long as you keep sending them your money?
To hell with you fools and your ridiculous phony outrage.
“I am the only free man on this train.” (Boris Pasternak — “Doctor Zhivago”)
Believe me: there is going to come a day when you bitches end up in the same cage with me, and I’m going to laugh you all to death, and you will richly deserve it.
“Save the 250k or whatever it ends up being for a truly worthwhile cause – education, senior citizen issues, small business loans, etc.”
Worth whose while? If it was worth the while of the people the money was taken from, what need was there to take it?
MA – “Find some old codger in a small town and ask them about choice, price and the free market. My money says they’d agree that Wal-Mart is an evil which worked hard to make itself necessary.”
I’d say your money is lost.
Walmart may be evil for the individual, but it is good for the sum. That’s how capitalism works. If Walmart did not provide us with what we want, quality product at minimum cost, then they would not have stayed in business.
The sum of the people in this country get the best product for their money, increased employment opps, better quality of life, etc… And I’m sure even the Codger is reaping some benefits as well. If he became a Walmart manager, he’d probably make more money, working less hours, and receiving more and better benefits then he ever did owning his own store. Go figure! (of course this is all hypothetically speaking).
Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
â??Wal-Mart, in fact, is a prime example of a company that uses its wealth to influence the laws that affect our markets.â?
MA- you describe the evils of Wal-Mart and the “Free-market” as their ability to influence the government with money, that “They are legally tilted”. Donâ??t you see that this is not a free market, and you canâ??t use it as an example of one specifically because of the reasons you sited. The problems in our market stem from the governments involvement. Small companies canâ??t compete because of overbearing and expensive regulation. Large companies like Wall-Mart can seize property through government protected immanent domain laws. Donâ??t point out the flaws in our market and use them as an example of the evils of the Free-Market, when the flaws you point out are due to legal manipulation. Whether you like it or not, you are not giving us an example of the immorality of the Free-Market, but that of the government.
John Kennedy: I am not morally obligated to abide by them and if you think you are then you have no moral standing to object when they sell your ass into slavery, or worse.
I admire your ability to pretend that Democracy is the source of all evil, and that if we could only bring about a magical transformation to Anarchy that all of our problems would be collectively and mystically solved.
Yes, yes, Anarchy is the solution to all problems, just donâ??t ask me for any of the details.
Why are we even listening to an anarchist? Anarchy would be a splendid idea wouldn’t it? Get pissed at your neighbor..maybe shoot them a few times. Maybe then your neighbor’s family decides to drive by and bomb your home, with your wife and 2 kids still in it. Good plan Kennedy. Go take that idea to Iraq and tell me how it works out. Anarchy is a deathwish-plain and simple.
Billy Beck – “What in Christ’s name is wrong with you people? Why on earth don’t you know that they will keep doing this as long as you keep sending them your money?”
Because we don’t have much of a choice, that’s why. Don’t you think that if I wasn’t gonna go to jail for it that I wouldn’t pay them? You must not be from the US otherwise you’d understand how it works.
Chris,
“Maybe then your neighbor’s family decides to drive by and bomb your home, with your wife and 2 kids still in it.”
1. Is that how you’d act in the absence of government?
2. It already happens in the presence of government.
3. Sometimes your government is doing the killing; see Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Why is voting on whose swimming pool to fix any more offensive in principle than voting on any other use of public funds? If you’re entitled to take money from people for defense then why not swimming pools?
“Yes, yes, Anarchy is the solution to all problems…”
Says who?
Chris –
430-21-4093
See that? That’s the socialist insecurity number that this government assigned to me thirty years ago. You can use it if you want to, because I don’t, although I might someday have it tatooed on my left wrist after a fashion familiar and beloved in certain murderous circles.
I stopped paying income taxes in 1977, and I will go to prison before the IRS gets one thin dime from me.
“From the US”??
I am an American, sir: born, and most certainly bred, which is what it really takes.
Because our Constitution gives that power to the government, though I fail to find anything in my little Cato book here about swimming pools.
1. Is that how you’d act in the absence of government?
No, but I’m not everyone else.
2. It already happens in the presence of government.
Yes, and we send those people to jail.
3. Sometimes your government is doing the killing; see Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Yes they do, WITHOUT my support.
Argue it any way you want, there is a Constitution, it is what it is, and if you think it’s “lacking”, tough sh@t. There’s not supposed to be opinion when it comes to that document, or what it allows for, except by amending it. I argue the facts, and read what is there, not tell everyone what I want, because what I want shouldn’t mean squat. Read the Constitution. Follow it or don’t. John Kennedy-I do give you a lot more credit than I do political parties for at least coming out and saying that you don’t like the way it is, rather than swear to uphold it and just to screw it up. If you think Anarchy is the way to go…have fun trying it somewhere else.
“There’s not supposed to be opinion when it comes to that document, or what it allows for, except by amending it.”
Who was entitled to make such an agreement on our behalf, and how?
I’d be more than happy to learn how NOT to us my SSN. I’m not just a talker, as I’ve turned down ALL school loans, and have not collected one dime from unemoployment now since I got layed off few months ago, even though I was eligible. How does one go about it?
It’s here John, that’s the way it is. I can’t argue your lack of confidence in such a document, or you opinion of it’s validity… If you don’t like the government, as an entity,leave,for those of us that care about how the government operates, we’ll just keep working to get those freedoms back that have been erroded away. Look at Radley’s Bush LibertyMeter. Lets try Libertarianism as the Constitution allows before we throw all law out of the window.
“It’s here John, that’s the way it is. I can’t argue your lack of confidence in such a document, or you opinion of it’s validity… If you don’t like the government, as an entity,leave…”
What entitles you to offer me such terms? Whose land is this?
How about we put a pollywog on the dime?
Or maybe Ronald Reagan, but with a tail and half-formed legs.
“Whose land is this?”
You can feel the way you want about it all, you just have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Stand up face to face with the government, and I will applaud you the entire way, but be prepared for your home to be the next Waco.
Is this occupied territory Chris, or does the government work for you?
I asked: Whose land is this?
Either:
1. It’s “our” land and we collectively have the right to dispose of it however we please. Which means you get to vote on which congressman’s pool boy you want to be.
or
2. It belongs to sovereign individuals, in which case your constitution is morally null and void.
There is no third way.
Chris: Anarchy would be a splendid idea wouldn’t it? Get pissed at your neighbor..maybe shoot them a few times. Maybe then your neighbor’s family decides to drive by and bomb your home, with your wife and 2 kids still in it. Good plan Kennedy. Go take that idea to Iraq and tell me how it works out. Anarchy is a deathwish-plain and simple.
I agree.
Apparently it is a deathwish of the terminally naïve.
-
John Kennedy: 1. Is that how you’d act in the absence of government?
More like â?¦ How do you think convicted criminals will behave in the absence of prisons?
Do children tend to behave better when they are supervised or unsupervised?
John Kennedy: 2. It already happens in the presence of government.
So obviously the two must be related?
Government = people bombing there neighbors houses
Ergo, if you could get rid of â??governmentâ? you could minimize (or at least reduce) the number of neighbors bombing each others houses.
John Kennedy: 3. Sometimes your government is doing the killing; see Waco and Ruby Ridge.
â?¦ and sometimes handguns are used in the commission of a crime instead of being used to prevent crime; ergo, ALL handguns should be banned.
See how that works â?¦ ?
Government = sometimes used for bad things = we must get rid of government!
Guns = sometimes used for bad things = we must get rid of guns.
John Kennedy: Why is voting on whose swimming pool to fix any more offensive in principle than voting on any other use of public funds?
Voting on whose swimming pool to fix is less offensive in reality than merely having my Prince send his soldiers to demand that I fix his swimming pool without even bothering to ask my opinion.
John Kennedy: If you’re entitled to take money from people for defense then why not swimming pools?
Because defense is an essential function of government, but swimming pool maintenance is not?
The problem I have with your argument is you havenâ??t actually articulated precisely how Anarchy would solve ANY of the problems we currently face, nor have you explained why you believe that Anarchy would be in any way superior to Democracy.
The Superiority of Anarchy is just an unsupported claim with NO evidence to back it up.
John Kennedy: Whose land is this?
1. It’s “our” land and we collectively have the right to dispose of it however we please. Which means you get to vote on which congressman’s pool boy you want to be.
or
2. It belongs to sovereign individuals, in which case your constitution is morally null and void.
There is no third way.
Who owns your house â?? You or your wife?
Maybe you BOTH own it?
At least until you get divorced â?¦
So either YOU or your WIFE own your house. But you canâ??t BOTH own it, because there is no third way.
…So the first Monkey Butler says to the bartender. “Can I have an ashtray”. The bartender says”No”. So the Monkey Butler says “Ok, then I’ll just have a banana daquiri.” Then the second monkey butler says, ” I’l have what he’s having, but can you serve it in an ashtray?” and the bartender says…
Oh wait where we discussing Ruby Ridge?
“Who owns your house â?? You or your wife?”
Are you married to the state?
John Kennedy: Are you married to the state?
In a manner of speaking.
Why do you think they call it a â??Social Contractâ??
So long as you and your wife agree to the same set of rules,/I> harmony prevails, but the moment one of you neglects your sacred oaths that contract is voided and chaos* (anarchy) ensues.
* i.e. survival of the fittest.
Bloody stupid diss, bet he didn’t do anywhere near that much damage. Original if rather lame excuse.
That it!! I’m quiting my job so that I don’t have to pay my taxes any more. I’ll just feed my kids dog food and live in my car!
There are thousands of elderly people living off of dog food because they can’t afford food and there are children living in cars because they are homeless and he is worrying about his stipid pool,,,, I see something fishy here..
If “Billy Beck” indeed exists – and even if he doesn’t for that matter – I have always wondered what would happen if even 1% of the taxpayers in this country simply refused to pay up, or even file.
Could, or would, they fine or jail 700,000-1,000,000 people? (Using memory alone for the numbers – apologies if errant.)
“If “Billy Beck” indeed exists…”
I’ve met Billy Beck. He’s thoroughly congruent with what he writes.
I’m not from Nevada, but I hope to hell those people are embarressed enough to vote that &%!*@^ out of office next election…
There is a story about a poor old invalid colonel who fought valiently for his country and planned to retire on his pension which was promised to him.
By the time he had reached old age and was due his pension, his government had changed and was slow to deliver the pension. He became frustrated while waiting for the checks to arrive. So he bought a rooster which he was told was a great fighter and would provide for him. But the rooster was skinny and needed to bulk up. So the old colonel fed the rooster his own food and ate the rooster’s shit.
This is what I think of when I think of Wal-Mart.
“I’m not from Nevada, but I hope to hell those people are embarressed enough to vote that &%!*@^ out of office next election…”
Does your state vote out representatives that bring home the bacon?
The manner in which anarchy is reviled, by certain posters, in this thread, leads me to believe that personal responsibility, sovereign individuality and voluntarism is dead to them.
“Kennedy: Are you married to the state?
Serpent: In a manner of speaking.”
Still smarting from the honeymoon, eh?
John Kennedy, you are like arguing with an arabic terrorist that claims a european or israeli court’s power over him baseless. You can argue with it as much as you want, but it is here, wether you or I like it or not, and I’d rather stay out of prison and follow the rules to change them then to disregard all law and tell them that they have no control over me, just to end up living the rest of my life in a concrete cell. Reality is a bitch.
67 comments, is this a record yet?
It’s sad… and a scary comment on how far we’ve regressed as a nation, when a Congressman feels no guilt or shame about doing something like this.
Everybody does it…
Yes, this is maddening.
Jumping jimminy, it’s only a bloody swimming pool!
What does it matter what the congressmans motives are, so long as the thing is legal, good value for money and freely available for the general taxpayer to use? Some kid might even learn to swim in it, it might even save a life.
“John Kennedy, you are like arguing with an arabic terrorist that claims a european or israeli court’s power over him baseless.”
Except for the inconvienient fact that I don’t commit acts of terrorism.
You don’t need authority over someone to justly retaliate for harm he’s done you. I’ve done you no harm. Yet you still feel entitled to treat me as if I’d blown up a building on your block?
John Venlet: The manner in which anarchy is reviled, by certain posters, in this thread, leads me to believe that personal responsibility, sovereign individuality and voluntarism is dead to them.
I donâ??t know if I am one of the Individuals you are referring to (an anarchy reviler), but the fact is that a belief in the superiority of anarchy as a viable political system shows an incredible level of naivety and credulousness in my opinion.
You have no reason for believing that anarchy is superior. You have no evidence that it would be. It is simply wishful thinking and dogmatism on your part.
-
John Kennedy: Still smarting from the honeymoon, eh?
Like I said yesterday John, you are long on promises, assertions, and claims and really, really short on any evidence, reason or logic. Anarchy is the solution to all lifeâ??s problems, just so long as we donâ??t ask you for any of the details.
You are sounding more and more like a â??trueâ? politician every day.
” Anarchy is the solution to all lifeâ??s problems…”
Again, who says so?
“God” is in the details Mr. Kennedy.
Anarchy = The theory that ALL forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced with voluntary association of cooperative groups.
Democracy = A form of government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives.
Isnâ??t a Democracy just a voluntary association of cooperative Individuals?
Also since there is no overarching authority in an anarchist system what exist to prevent a Democracy from forming? In other words, in anarchy what authority is capable of preventing an authority from arising (evolving)?
Give me a reason to believe your views on this matter are something more than extreme naivety.
“Isnâ??t a Democracy just a voluntary association of cooperative Individuals?”
No, it’s not. Because you bill individuals who have not volunteered.
JTK: I can’t speak for the state I’m living in (Connecticut), but I *personally* do not re-vote for anyone supporting pork.
“JTK: I can’t speak for the state I’m living in (Connecticut), but I *personally* do not re-vote for anyone supporting pork.”
But they don’t vote out people in CT for bringing home the bacon, do they?
Have you voted for any incumbents?
John Kennedy: No, it’s not. Because you bill individuals who have not volunteered.
I would argue that the moment those individuals sprouted some pubes and moved out of Mom and Dadâ??s house, yet chose to stay in this country, that they volunteered to be billed.
In other words, if you live with a woman, and you sleep with her every night, you can say she is not your girlfriend til your blue in the face, but as far as I am concerned SHE IS YOUR GIRLFRIEND!
“I would argue that the moment those individuals sprouted some pubes and moved out of Mom and Dadâ??s house, yet chose to stay in this country, that they volunteered to be billed.”
What entitled the parties to the constitution to offer inhabitants of this territory such a choice?
Every argument you make presumes that your government may justly require that people pay up or leave, but you’re never come close to justifying that premise.
If you were my landlord then my choosing to stay on your property would oblige me to pay for the use of your property.
Now all you have to do is explain how you’re my landlord.
John Kennedy: What entitled the parties to the constitution to offer inhabitants of this territory such a choice?
Ohh come on now Mr. Kennedy! Why donâ??t you just ask, If someone comes to murder you, what right do you have to shoot back?
Are you a member of PETA now?
What gives you the right to kill and eat animals???
John Kennedy: Every argument you make presumes that your government may justly require that people pay up or leave, but you’re never come close to justifying that premise.
I didnâ??t realize that I needed to justify self-defense and self-preservation. I guess I wrongly assumed those notions would be axiomatic between us?
John Kennedy: If you were my landlord then my choosing to stay on your property would oblige me to pay for the use of your property. Now all you have to do is explain how you’re my landlord.
I would say that the principle of Continuity is what makes the Constitution and the U.S. government your landlord. Individuals may come and go, but the Society persists. You seem to be saying that on the day you were born the entire country should have stopped what it was doing and taken note.
Hey look, John Kennedy is here now, I guess we better nullify the Constitution because he might be offended by it.
Your problem is that you want to pretend that you exist in a universe unbound by Fate.
The reason we tolerate government is not that it is justified to force people to pay for something they do not want, but because we have no other choice (at least when we’re talking about having a government to arrest murderers and do that kind of thing). Even if we could agree that government is evil by its definition, there is no alternative unless we can expect all people to voluntarily respect the rights of others (and to agree on what those rights are).
Since anarchists talk about private security forces, I would guess that the/a theory of anarchy includes the assumption that at least some people would not respect others’ rights voluntarily. The creation of these forces, however, would not solve that problem. What would prevent the private security forces from doing the same thing, and taking away people’s freedom? What prevents a “private security force” from taking on the role of the government? The other private security forces, if they are strong enough, but even if they succeed, it’s still going to get messy. Unless we can expect people to respect the rights of others voluntarily, in the long term we have a choice between having a dominant government (preferably in some way controlled by the governed) or civil war.
Theories of anarchy depend on certain rules being followed — that there cannot be an unjustly coercive government, for example. Without a government, who would enforce a rule like this?
And just in case it is not immediately clear above, I am not an anarchist.
“What would prevent the private security forces from doing the same thing, and taking away people’s freedom?”
In some cases nothing, but market forces are better checks and balances than votes.
What is the magic of government? What prevents the army from taking your freedom? Your vote?
“What is the magic of government? What prevents the army from taking your freedom? Your vote?”
I would say the checks and balances that we have in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of govt and the written constitution.
How do the branches of government and the constition stop the army from taking over when the army has overwhelming firepower? They don’t. It’s the conscience and self interest of individual soldiers that deters them from taking over.
Conscience and self interest are not products of government, they will continue to operate in the absence of government.
So what you are saying is that we currently live in a state of anarchy, but it’s just called something different?
“So what you are saying is that we currently live in a state of anarchy, but it’s just called something different?”
No.
JTK, out of curiosity, and not rhetoric or sarcasm, if Bush came to you and said, “we can do whatever you think is necessary to run this country, change what you deem necessary,” what would you propose?
I suppose “run this country” is the whole problem, right?
Theories of anarchy depend on certain rules being followed
And theories of government dont?
Karl Born: What would prevent the private security forces from doing the same thing, and taking away people’s freedom?”
John Kennedy: In some cases nothing â?¦
More like ALL cases.
John Kennedy: â?¦ but market forces are better checks and balances than votes.
How so? Commonality has to exist before trade or markets can.
John Kennedy: What is the magic of government? What prevents the army from taking your freedom? Your vote?
What is the magic of markets? What prevents the â??private security forceâ? from taking your freedom? Your money?
Theories of anarchy depend on certain rules being followed
Jonathan Wilde: And theories of government donâ??t?
Rules are an inconsistency in anarchy. Anarchy is the denial of rules.
But rules are completely consistent in theories of government. Government is all about rules.
But that is your problem Jonathan. You and the other Anarchist/Atheists want to pretend that we exist in a universe with no rules. It is an absurd premise.
Rules are an inconsistency in anarchy. Anarchy is the denial of rules.
Have you listened to anything JTK has said? Anarchocapitalism is all about rules. Much more so than minarchism. When you realize that, you will finally understand the argument.
Why do you think I’m an atheist?
Jonathan Wilde: Have you listened to anything JTK has said?
Every word.
Jonathan Wilde: Anarchocapitalism is all about rules. Much more so than minarchism. When you realize that, you will finally understand the argument.
Why would you just assert this instead of actually explaining it to me? What are the â??Rules of Anarchyâ? that you are referring to?
Jonathan Wilde: Why do you think I’m an atheist?
I apologize if I drew the wrong conclusion about you in that regard. It is certainly not my intention to mislabel you. I assumed you were an Atheist because so far I have met very few non-Atheists on this forum, and I canâ??t think of a single Anarchists I have encountered who was not an Atheist.
Anarchists do not advocate absence of rules, only absence of rulers.
One definition of anarchism that works for me is: an ethical system that does not exempt the rulers (even in a pure democracy) from the rules that apply to the citizens in their private capacity. Without that exemption, rulers cannot rule.
Anton Sherwood: Anarchists do not advocate absence of rules, only absence of rulers.
If there are no â??rulersâ? then who determines (or decides) what the rules are?
Depends on which anarchist you ask. :P
Hi, I just wanted so say thank you guys ! I really like your site and i hope you’ll continue to improving it.
http://dog-ear-peircing.skidman.com
http://nose-ring-styles.skidman.com
http://body-pircings.skidman.com
buy viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22