[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, as larkin would say, we can't do anything about stuff like the War on Drugs or bloated government because people, familes and kidz. Can't change it because too many people would lose their cushy fedgov jobs. Chaos ensues! Country collapses! All those lawyers, judges, prison guards and police officers need to eat, INT. Fuck the consequences. Fuck the abuse of power.

Funny. Don't think I've ever seen larkin drop the "What about the children?!!" excuse, and such reasoning usually comes from authoritarian types anyway. Believe it or not, actual liberals can and do disagree with the President's stance on drugs. Guess your perspective is flawed. Imagine that.

[Arcanist]

Of course, not in so few words. But it could be gathered as such from past posts.

Yeah, all you do is "disagree." The machine presses on.

[larkin]

Actually, what I would say - and have said many times before - is that absurd false equivalencies that allow people to ignore meaningful differences in party position and rhetoric is exactly what leads to us doing nothing about something like the war on drugs.

I mean, I could start a thread on policy changes that would make a difference in the war on drugs, and it would immediately be met with comments like "well, it's not like political party x is any better on the issue." Which in short order leads to all of us shrugging our shoulders, saying no one party is any better than the other, wondering if suicide is the only meaningful question in this world, and only ocassionally advocating for armed rebellion. The type of useless navel-gazing that's not only unproductive, it actually empowers neocoservatives, theocrats, and the perpetuation of civil rights abuses by both parties that surprise surprise, people shrug their shoulders at.

So by all means, let's have more threads on the War on Drugs, and the ridiculousness of our prison-industrial complex fueled, in large part, by mandatory minimum sentencing laws. But don't complain that mandatory minimum sentences are still in place when your response is that both parties have equivalent records on this issue, or to post more inanities like "the machine presses on."

>>>>

And if that position is still unclear - it certainly seems to be hard for some to grasp - feel free to explain the difference between these two statements:

"Everything is outrageous!"
"Nothing is outrageous.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"

Get the picture yet?

[INTelliJent]

Hardly. You just believe in violence as a solution, and therefore reject a voluntarist approach. You can call it navel gazing if you want to, just like Nugent can talk about sucking on machine guns.

[nowt]

Violence is a solution. One of many. But it's not the United War Departments of America, is it--

You don't want to contribute anything you do not volunteer, and so reject patently non-violent means that are intended to reduce overall violence. Certainly has you disarmed. Tell me--

What is the difference between earning X amount after being taxed [taxed for both moving and holding amounts owned by a pre-existing entity, that entity having created and maintained a system by which wealth may be held and moved] and earning X amount?--

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hardly. You just believe in violence as a solution, and therefore reject a voluntarist approach. You can call it navel gazing if you want to, just like Nugent can talk about sucking on machine guns.

That was rhetorical. Taxes measure the movement of currency, currency taxed proof of civil transaction. That measure of civility grants that a multi-purpose tool [whose use, relegated by delegate] is communal reward in some proportionate manner--

Welcome to America.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Violence is a solution. One of many. But it's not the United War Departments of America, is it-- You don't want to contribute anything you do not volunteer, and so reject patently non-violent means that are intended to reduce overall violence. Certainly has you disarmed. Tell me-- What is the difference between earning X amount after being taxed [taxed for both moving and holding amounts owned by a pre-existing entity, that entity having created and maintained a system by which wealth may be held and moved] and earning X amount?

Violence may eliminate a barrier to a goal, only to reveal a new one created by the violence. An exercise in futility. The means that are supposed to "reduce violence", are only meant to reduce the flow in one direction, that is, reduce defense.

In answer to your query, it sounds like an excellent relativistic argument for slavery.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course, not in so few words. But it could be gathered as such from past posts. Yeah, all you do is "disagree." The machine presses on.

Did you trash your room when mommy told you no? You have no idea what I do beyond the words I post on this forum. What I don't do is hold my breath till my face turns blue like a petulant child that does not get his way every time.

[Miracle Whip]

I saw Glen Beck interview Ted Nugent, Ted actually won the wing nut award that round.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	After the Giffords shooting "violent republican rhetoric" was all over the news on both sides, either attacking or defending the position, leading to an explosion in returns. That doesn't mean it is any more or less prevalent in practice.

This may have had something to do with the violent republican rhetoric. Something.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Violence may eliminate a barrier to a goal, only to reveal a new one created by the violence. An exercise in futility. The means that are supposed to "reduce violence", are only meant to reduce the flow in one direction, that is, reduce defense. [...] In answer to your query, it sounds like an excellent relativistic argument for slavery.

Everything is slavery, yes. Taxes in a democratic government are slavery. And all is futile; we should rely on voluntary respect of mutual self-interest to prevent violence. Because you've shown so much respect for anyone's self-interest aside from your own. Anything less than total voluntarism is statism. The kind of total lack proportion that allows someone to say that Libya is exactly the same as Iraq.

And democrats are communists (actually said by a Republican contender for Vice President), republicans are nazis, universal healthcare is socialism, and anyone deviating from our preferred interpretation of the founding fathers is a traitor who doesn't believe in freedom. It's positively Orwellian, and again, it's exactly the exaggerated rhetoric that makes the continued actions you supposedly object to possible. As long as it's all just he said, she said, why should anyone give a shit?

There is exactly no middle ground, no meaningful policy change aside from overthrowing the system entirely. Which allows you to bitch about every policy solution.

Fine, but that puts you very definitely in the realm of endless navel-gazing at least, and far closer to Nugent than anyone who believes in meaningful distinctions in policy in the world outside of a compound in Idaho or Texas.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What I don't do is hold my breath till my face turns blue like a petulant child that does not get his way every time.

Also a good description of the similarities between some and Nugent.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Everything is slavery, yes. Taxes in a democratic government are slavery. And all is futile; we should rely on voluntary respect of mutual self-interest to prevent violence. Because you've shown so much respect for anyone's self-interest aside from your own. Anything less than total voluntarism is statism. The kind of total lack proportion that allows someone to say that Libya is exactly the same as Iraq.

I do respect and acknowledge the self interest of others. Until they use violence to attempt and serve that interest.

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And democrats are communists (actually said by a Republican contender for Vice President), republicans are nazis, universal healthcare is socialism, and anyone deviating from our preferred interpretation of the founding fathers is a traitor who doesn't believe in freedom. It's positively Orwellian, and again, it's exactly the exaggerated rhetoric that makes the continued actions you supposedly object to possible. As long as it's all just he said, she said, why should anyone give a shit?

Having a state isn't statism? Pray tell what it is then. Please explain proportions then.

Middle ground can always be found in a voluntary fashion, or in a statist fashion after much blood and treasure is spilt (or the threat of such) in regressive displays of pride, anger, and ignorance.

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is exactly no middle ground, no meaningful policy change aside from overthrowing the system entirely. Which allows you to bitch about every policy solution.

Mass abandonment is not the same as overthrowing. Speaking of rhetoric
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I wouldn't bitch if government began to roll back across the board, and I could live with a "night watchmen state". But that is indeed a utopian farce. The same utopian farce sold by the "founding fathers".

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Having a state isn't statism? Pray tell what it is then. Please explain proportions then.

No more than having a community implies communism. But hey, it's not often someone so spectacularly misses and demonstrates the point simultaneously.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do respect and acknowledge the self interest of others. Until they use violence to attempt and serve that interest.

Is there anything other people can do, which could in any way affect you, with which you disagree, that you do NOT consider "violent"?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Having a state isn't statism? Pray tell what it is then. Please explain proportions then.

It is, technically, but this word is being used in epithetic rather than descriptive fashion. When people are preoccupied with sensationalist language and mutual accusation, they aren't actually dealing with policy - in the respect that terms like "communist" and "nazi" and "statist" have little to do with the politics in question. Popular emphasis is being placed upon controlling the discussion through these terms rather than using the discussion to address anything real. We might argue this to be the distinction between a shill or corporatist mouthpiece and an independent thinker insofar as controlling the dialogue is something one does to attain or maintain power, rather than to identify or define good policy.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No more than having a community implies communism. But hey, it's not often someone so spectacularly misses and demonstrates the point simultaneously.

I'm using the the term state defined thusly: "An organization with a comparative advantage in violence, extending over a geographic area whose boundaries are determined by its power to tax constituents."

A community and communism have almost nothing in common. A state is a state (in the same way a community is a community), in whatever form it wants to arrange itself, if still meets the definition above.

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is, technically, but this word is being used in epithetic rather than descriptive fashion. When people are preoccupied with sensationalist language and mutual accusation, they aren't actually dealing with policy - in the respect that terms like "communist" and "nazi" and "statist" have little to do with the politics in question. Popular emphasis is being placed upon controlling the discussion through these terms rather than using the discussion to address anything real. We might argue this to be the distinction between a shill or corporatist mouthpiece and an independent thinker insofar as controlling the dialogue is something one does to attain or maintain power, rather than to identify or define good policy.

There is a distinct difference between "communism" and "statism". Communism is a type of statist organization. Statism is "all/any of the above", and of course, in relative degrees depending on the accuser/accused.

In general, the accusation is thrown out when there is an argument for an increase in government to solve a problem, not in a decrease in government to solve a problem.

Of course, I would agree that merely rolling back some parts and not others can lead to more disastrous effects, such as rolling back banking regulation but keeping the fractional reserve central banking apparatus in place. But of course, even the regulation and the regulators will be bought and sold by those it is supposed to regulate anyway (especially since they have direct access to the money trough), so that is little more than a token gesture.

The bottom line, for the voluntarist, is that any "policies" that involve/require an increase in a statist organization not only require theft to function, not only won't actually solve the problem they are supposed to, they will only create new problems on top of the old ones. Also, any statist solution depends on a lack of resistance anyway, and so why is a coercive apparatus needed? (IE: If most people agree helping the elderly is a preferable action, why create a bureaucratic layer to force it?)

Sure, some policies might cause less new problems than others (and therefore be considered "good policy", despite that they still require theft/violence to implement), but that relativism is still a constantly losing affair. On top of all this, is the low effort thinking that sees something personally undesirable and knee jerks "We just need more laws!" or "We just need to kill just a few more people" (neither of these responses are specific to any "ism").

Of course, charges of a knee jerk reaction of "Let's just pitch the whole thing" will come, but I certainly wouldn't call any of the free market compendiums "knee-jerk". None of the actual "isms" are knee jerk responses, regardless of whether or not I agree with the premises or conclusions.

[sdfghj]

Entertainers say outlandish things publicly all the time(the rest of us do it privately), but usually they're not intimating they're going to Assassinate the President. Ted's not worried about justice, but his own agenda, which seems to be playing guitar, hunting and thinking about assassinating the President. Why is he so pissed? His life is no good? Does he think killing the President is going to put this country in the "Right" direction? Obviously he does. It seems Ted and Tea Party types are strolling down Fascist lane. No room for diversity. One Flag, one Nation, One language, one color (for the racists among them), one God, Alcohol (for Ted sexxx) not Marijuana, etc. Here's to hoping some Ted-loving madman doesn't try to make Uncle Ted proud.

[DrAwkward]

Originally Posted by sdfghj To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Entertainers say outlandish things publicly all the time(the rest of us do it privately), but usually they're not intimating they're going to Assassinate the President. Ted's not worried about justice, but his own agenda, which seems to be playing guitar, hunting and thinking about assassinating the President. Why is he so pissed? His life is no good? Does he think killing the President is going to put this country in the "Right" direction? Obviously he does. It seems Ted and Tea Party types are strolling down Fascist lane. No room for diversity. One Flag, one Nation, One language, one color (for the racists among them), one God, Alcohol (for Ted sexxx) not Marijuana, etc. Here's to hoping some Ted-loving madman doesn't try to make Uncle Ted proud.

I agree and having interacted with Ted's kind of people first hand I'm not confident that one won't.

Trash, truly trashy people.

We have a militia upstate, it's all very Bowling for Columbine.

[Ray9]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is, technically, but this word is being used in epithetic rather than descriptive fashion. When people are preoccupied with sensationalist language and mutual accusation, they aren't actually dealing with policy - in the respect that terms like "communist" and "nazi" and "statist" have little to do with the politics in question. Popular emphasis is being placed upon controlling the discussion through these terms rather than using the discussion to address anything real. We might argue this to be the distinction between a shill or corporatist mouthpiece and an independent thinker insofar as controlling the dialogue is something one does to attain or maintain power, rather than to identify or define good policy.

It's far more complex than that. Someone from say, generation Y, has known nothing but statism, regarding concepts such as Communism and Nazism to be nothing more than concepts or material written in books having relevance only as out-moded figments of shadowy history. Boomers like Nugent remember a world very different from the one occupied by the human race at this point in time. Nugent has witnessed the unraveling of civility and the ongoing dismantling of civilization itself for the absurd purpose of some grandiose, utopian world-government model. Nugent and others believe we had it right the first time, especially with the Constitution which is a tacit rejection of statism. Nugent is an easy target for the current status quo of the left. He doesn't have the verbal virtuosity that Thomas Sowell attributes to the ruling intelligencia. Nugent's world is under attack from the very sinister forces that he was taught to avoid and eschew. Nugent sees the world coming apart and he is appalled at the poisoned values of his countrymen who have become prostituted to an entitled existance. Some are to stupid to see it happening and some are just too spineless to change course.

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm using the the term state defined thusly: "An organization with a comparative advantage in violence, extending over a geographic area whose boundaries are determined by its power to tax constituents."

So, a landlord.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nugent and others believe we had it right the first time, especially with the Constitution which is a tacit rejection of statism.

That's pretty well-defined and well-spoken view, for someone who

	doesn't have the verbal virtuosity that Thomas Sowell attributes to the ruling intelligencia.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, a landlord.

Well, corporatism is neofuedalism. No disagreement.