Happy 4th Everyone!!1

[guerilla]

Super's reasoning is ...

If you are raped, it's not rape because you let it happen.

And if you don't want to get raped, you should never leave your house or move somewhere that there are no rapists.

If the world is full of rapists, that's too bad for you, just shut up and let them rape you because you like it since you didn't kill yourself first.

Also, you never don't have freedom of choice which is why there is no such thing as slavery or coercion.

---

Basically, morals don't exist, existence is a suicide pact, violence is always justified.

 

[Veritas]

Just take the Jodi Arias case, all evidence states she is guilty, she stabbed him, cut his throat, shot him in the head, and yet the Jury cant decide. That's where things will slowly move towards. Court is no longer court, it will become a social media circus.

 

[JakeStratham]

It's an interesting question when you follow it logically all the way back to its root.

Indeed it is.

In reading your last post, I can see a number of places where our chains of reason diverge. I also see a number of points in your post that raise further questions.

For example, did France have the right to lay claim to the territory designated in the Louisiana Purchase in the first place? If so, how was that claim laid and was the method legitimate?

And do we accept the assertion that the Indians had a right to the property they claimed to "own"? For example, a group of people saying they own Manhattan is clearly not the same as that same group proving their (legitimate) right to ownership. Did they lay claim in a legitimate fashion? Or did they point to miles of land and say, "mine." Or worse, did they simply kill or drive out other tribes that inhabited the area? Surely, hunting on miles of land does not, in itself, give one a right of ownership to those miles of territory. If we agree on this point, it is questionable how much of the land they "sold" was "owned" by them.

And there remains the second of my two initial sets of questions: how does a state establish its sovereignty? By force? By edict? Do you feel the method with which a state does so is legitimate?

If we define "sovereignty" simply as authority over territory, and can agree that authority springs from ownership or agency (i.e. an agent hired by the owner of territory to exert authority), then figuring out ownership becomes doubly important. To my knowledge, the validity of sovereignty does not rely on an ability to defend the territory over which authority is claimed. To be sure, a stronger person may assert ownership/sovereignty by might, but so too might John Gotti's gang.

Incidentally, I'm not asking for responses to any of the questions above. I think we've gone as far as we can go with this for now. It's Friday and the evening is right around the corner - it's time to enjoy friends and family.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. By the way, if you're ever bored, check out Spooner's letter to Grover Cleveland (specifically Section VI)...

Lysander Spooner: Letter to Grover Cleveland

I can imagine Cleveland reading it, thinking "What on earth is this crank talking about?!" lol

 

[Zaino]

Muggings happen "on the spot", you're forced to react instantly or you'll be murdered or badly wounded.

I would like to point out for the betterment of the group that this is how it appears but it isnt always the way it happens. Muggings the majority of the time are chosen, there is an evaluation of their targets that people miss, thats why they are mugged. But regardless, a mugger will move on if he see you scanning the area, aware of your shit. Walk around typing on your phone and your gonna have a problem with that same person.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Did they lay claim in a legitimate fashion?

How do you define legitimate in this context? To sell something you have to have some kind of claim to it, right?

Many people say that some of the land in the US was "stolen" from Indians, but what claim did they have to the land in the first place? Because they were here first? Is there some law that makes that a legitimate claim?

And it's not like "The Indians" were a monolithic block, they were many tribes, often warring with each other. It's not as if the many tribes of Indians put a council together, joined forces and "laid claim" to this land from sea to shining sea.

So again, the issue comes down to sovereignty, and sovereignty must be defended with force or the threat of force.

If you don't accept the idea that sovereignty must be defended by force, then how do you determine ownership? Is all land owned by the first person to set foot on it in perpetuity? How much land are they allowed to claim? An acre? 40 acres? A million acres? And who makes these rules?

It would seem to me that if you don't accept the issue of sovereignty then you need some way to define ownership, so how would you do that?

btw I love Spooner so I'll definitely check that out.

 

[Moxie]

First off, I wanna say that I'm putting in an early nomination for JakeStratham, for Wickedfire Gentleman of the Year 2013.

And do we accept the assertion that the Indians had a right to the property they claimed to "own"?

..according to researchers at the National Library of the Netherlands, "The original inhabitants of the area were unfamiliar with the European notions and definitions of ownership rights. For the Indians, water, air and land could not be traded. Such exchanges would also be difficult in practical terms because many groups migrated between their summer and winter quarters. It can be concluded that both parties probably went home with totally different interpretations of the sales agreement."

Peter Minuit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Historians often point out that North American Indians had a concept of land ownership different from that of the Europeans. The Indians regarded land, like air and water, as something you could use but not own or sell. It has been suggested that the Indians may have thought they were sharing, not selling.

Myth #45: The Dutch bought Manhattan for $24 worth of beads. | History Myths Debunked



"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

"One does not sell the land people walk on." --Crazy Horse

"We do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us?" -Sealth

Native American Quotes About Land Ownership

 

[scottspfd82]

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.

It's not difficult to leave your parents, siblings, significant other, children, friends, loved ones behind?

I've lived overseas. It's very difficult.

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.

I was talking about those who initiated it. Not soldiers.

I'm probably biased, I served in Iraq under similar delusions. It's a very sickening feeling when you realize that "serving your country" is not honorable, but criminal.

I'd like to say that those who serve falsely believing they're doing so to protect their loved ones against a threat to their livelihood aren't guilty of anything. But that's probably rooted in my experiences and wanting to believe that I'm not a criminal. Not sure if that argument would hold water in any rational court.

It's early... TBC...

 

[CCarter]

​