Happy 4th Everyone!!1
- Thread starter dreamache
- Start date
10 million Americans drafted during World War II and 2 million for Vietnam, so that might have altered the average intelligence, during those times at least.
Vietnam is said to be the first US conflict where a significant amount of soldiers questioned why they were there.
I understand your point. Let me explain one facet of my (current) position.
Your question addresses one of agency. I'll use a hypothetical example with 2 scenarios to make my point. I'll then connect the example to your question about the drafted man.
First scenario:
Suppose you hire a contract killer for $X. The killer hits the mark and collects the payment from you.
In this scenario, the killer would clearly be an aggressor. I also consider you to be an aggressor since you willingly hired him as your agent. You did not have the right to kill the mark, and delegated this nonexistent right to another.
Second scenario:
Suppose a man you believe is going to kill someone approaches you and says, "Give me $X or I will kill you." You hand over the money to avoid harm. The mugger then buys a gun to kill a person.
In this scenario, the killer would clearly by an aggressor. I would not consider you to be an aggressor since your money was taken from you under threat of violence. You did not willingly hire the man as your agent to carry out the murder.
A key point here is that you did not kill the victim yourself. If you had killed the victim under threat of violence from the mugger, I would consider you an aggressor. I would also consider the mugger an aggressor (in this case) for "hiring" you as his agent in the deed.
Now, about the drafted man. I consider him an aggressor because he is the one killing others. I also consider those who hired him as an agent for the deed as aggressors.
To use another example... torture at Gitmo. The agents of torture are aggressors. So too are their superiors. So too is Bush Jr. So too is... you get my point. And that leads to the McElroy's quote in my sig about electoral politics.
Three notes:
First, many libertarians who agree with the non-aggression principle will disagree that you are an aggressor in either of the above scenarios. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. In fact, I continue to think, test, think, and test hoping to stumble upon something that wrecks my house of cards and forces me to rebuild.
Second, this ends my contribution to this thread. Thursdays are usually the busiest days of the week for me, and the ROI for contributing here is low.
Third, I may have screwed something up in my explanation. It is because I'm in a hurry. I reserve the right to say, "whoops. Forget I said that."
This is why I'm not a fan of the analogies usually purported by guerilla.
You're making the comparison of being held up by a mugger to paying taxes. This ignores reality because:
1) Nobody is holding a gun/knife/weapon to your head, and there is no person threatening you right now. Once you refuse to pay taxes, the government will first ask you to pay for them via mail. Then they will call you. Eventually they will send a lien taking your valuable property. And then, you may go to jail if you further refuse. This process takes YEARS. It is not like being held up by a mugger.
2) You are free to leave the United States. Worst case scenario you still have to fund terrorism for 10 years. But it would be easy to set up foreign corporations and not report any of it to the IRS, so long as you have no intention of returning.
You're making excuses/anaolgies for funding immorality when the reality is that you aren't FORCED to do it, you choose to do it, likely because you enjoy your life here in America. Which makes it ironic that you'd suggest somebody drafted pay the price of death for refusing said immorality. Your analogy would be more accurately reflected like this:
A city governor approaches you and says "Give me $100 or I'll kill you, I need this money to go kill other people. Your only other option is to leave my city and never return."
You're giving him the $100 because you like living in his city, even though you disagree with what he's doing with your money and how he's acquiring it.
I'll also throw out - the Viet war was in the Cold War era and closely after WWII. Worldwide dictatorship and genocide WAS an actual threat. While that doesn't fully justify every action taken, it's not simply a bunch of greedy old men trying to acquire power. That is an inanely retrospect assertion made by a keyboard warrior in a safe country.
Hey Britfags, are you guys taught that the "Founding Fathers" were freedom fighters or seditious terrorists? Always wondered this...
we are never really taught anything about it. probably out of shame , i guess.
the only us history I was fed at school was civil war...
Having nuclear weapons made it very unlikely that the USA (or USSR) would become victim of a "worldwide dictatorship."
The leaked Pentagon Papers showed that the US government hadn't exactly been truthful in regards to the Vietnam War.
Damn this year was good. 10 minutes before the firework show a bunch of boats went up in flames at a boat yard from fireworks that fell on them.
2013 July 4th Lake Union boat fire, Up close!! - YouTube
lmao, also was packing a bowl and walked right into a cop while I was breaking it up.
2013 July 4th Lake Union boat fire, Up close!! - YouTube
lmao, also was packing a bowl and walked right into a cop while I was breaking it up.
Hey Britfags, are you guys taught that the "Founding Fathers" were freedom fighters or seditious terrorists? Always wondered this...
We really don't care either way. America's continued attempts at validation are cute though
We really don't care either way. America's continued attempts at validation are cute though
Interesting.
Seems like a pretty significant part of British history, so it's odd that it isn't given more attention in British schools.
A mugger steals your money under the threat of violence. So does the state. Just because the state does so through legislation and in a way that makes your average person view it as a legitimate function of Government it's still theft under the threat of violence.
They are very much the same.
Why do you always suggest that people leave? For one you're not free to leave and for two you shouldn't be forced to leave.
In your own words "worst case scenario you still have to fund terrorism for 10 years".
Oh, if I have to leave my family and property to avoid theft I only keep having to let them rob me and finance mass murder for 10 more years? They sound like really nice people when you put it that way.
You honestly believe that anyone involved in initiating the Vietnam war was doing so because it was "good for America" and not for personal gain?
LO Fuckin' L.
Let me preface this by saying I am not a statist, and fully recognize the evil the US government does.
but...
You do not own property. None of us do. This is an important thing to remember when talking about taxes, and whether or not taxation is theft.
The reason we are all required to pay taxes is because we are living and working on US-owned land, land which is defended by the government. That's called sovereignty, and the fact that we do not have individual sovereignty explains why we are required to "render unto Caesar".
If you were living and working on land that you actually owned, land that you defended from hostile outside influences, land that you had not already entered into a contractual leasing agreement with the government - then the government would not have a claim to a portion of your income through taxes.
British schools tend to focus on more relevant history, romans, saxons/normans, medieval times, iron age, basically europe.
FREEEEEDDDDUUUUUMMMMMBBBBBBBBBB!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo]4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched without Consent, Rights Taken Away, while Innocent - YouTube[/ame]
InB4 statists gonna state!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo]4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched without Consent, Rights Taken Away, while Innocent - YouTube[/ame]
InB4 statists gonna state!
UG, how does a state establish a right to property? And do you feel that its method for doing so is legitimate?
I understand what you mean when you say the US's ownership of this part of North America is based on its sovereignty, and thus all fruits borne from it are owned by it (please correct me if I misunderstand you). But how does a state establish its sovereignty? Do you feel the method with which it does is legitimate?
Here, I assume nothing of your position. I'm inquiring, not to debate (rabbit holes and all), but to understand your thinking. If you've explained it before, forgive me for missing it.
To save time, here is my thinking...
A state can establish a right to property by the following methods:
1. voluntary exchange with a previous owner. This gets a little messy. If a state purchases land from a previous owner, it does so (presumably) with monies taken by force or created. That is a discussion that goes beyond the scope of my original questions.
2. homesteading. The state would establish its right to a piece of property by "mixing its labor" (to paraphrase Locke). This presupposes the property is not rightfully owned by another. This can get messy, too. After all, any "mixing of labor" done by a state is done (presumably) with assets it has taken by force, or paid for with monies taken by force or created.
3. force. Essentially, the state would kill the inhabitants of the property in question, or drive them away. Then, set up shop and defend.
4. edict. Here, the state would issue a verbal or written proclamation of its right to a given piece of property.
Again, I'm not in this for a debate. It would be a waste of precious time for both of us. That said, I have seen you assert in the past that the US owns the land, and would like to better understand your position on the state's method and the method's legitimacy. We'll both live if we disagree.
Forgive any lack of clarity above. Still working on my first cup of joe.
^^ #3 = "native americans"
Then there was:
Louisiana Purchase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase
Then there was:
Louisiana Purchase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase
blah blah blah how the gov got control of land.
It's an interesting question when you follow it logically all the way back to its root.
In the case of the United States, the land was obtained through a combination of force and a series of voluntary exchanges. But it raises an interesting question. What right did the French have to sell the Louisiana Purchase? Or for that matter, what right did the Indians have to sell Manhattan? In the case of the Indians one could make the argument that they were the original inhabitants, but we don't know what other tribes the sellers may or may not have warred with in order to gain control of the land.
Even if we suppose the Indians were the first human inhabitants of much of the land in the US, what law (man made or other) gives them exclusive right to that land in perpetuity? "The Law of Finders Keepers"? And now that the US government has control of that land, what gives them the right to this land in perpetuity?
The answer to both is sovereignty, and sovereignty must me defended by force or it is lost. So no matter how far you trace back "ownership" of land, you still come to the same point which is to truly own land you must be willing and able to defend it by force. This is what sovereignty is all about and is why we are subject to taxation while living and working on land that is defended by force of the US government.
You asked me if I think this is legitimate. Well that's another interesting question. I think taxation to some degree is legitimate insofar as I would expect you to charge me money for working your land or living on your land. You might call it rent instead of tax, but it's the same thing - a percentage of my earnings in exchange for use of something that you call your own.
Again, don't take my explanation as a defense of statism, it really is just an explanation, nothing more.
Muggings happen "on the spot", you're forced to react instantly or you'll be murdered or badly wounded. You can make plans to leave the US gov, pay your taxes this year, file all the paperwork to move overseas, do it and not look back.
lol, because anarchists always take the moral high ground in arguments. I don't know how you can argue morality as strongly as you do and then continue to finance terrorism and murder. As Jake suggested, you should face imprisonment or make an attempt to leave (with your family) and avoid paying taxes.
Which is why it's ironic that you continue to live here and pay taxes (assuming you live here). You're not trapped. Moving overseas isn't difficult, I know dozens of people that have done it.
I'm not a fan of war to begin with and don't agree with the Vietnam War, but I can see why some soldiers believed this was necessary to protect their family and country. Are they not guilty then because they were deluded? A question I'm still asking myself.