lol ya slaveowners would let their slaves freely walk out of the plantation. You're starting to sound really desperate with these analogies.
Do you know what the IRS policy is on taxing people who leave the US? It would help if you thought more and posted less until you were close to the level of understanding everyone else is operating at.
Nope, Somalia or mountains. There are options, they suck because people prefer government so prosperous areas of commerce are held within governments.
Which mountains? Why Somalia?
Unbelievable. "As far as ridiculous analogies", and proceeds on with another ridiculous analogy about being raped. You're not being raped, you are paying a tax towards government products that regulate large societies and allow for ethical commerce.
You're not being raped, you're being made love to tenderly by a nice stranger.
But let's unpack the rest. Who decided society should be regulated? Why? What is "ethical commerce"?
But it is your fault. Using your rape analogy, it's like looking at buying a home, realizing that a rapist lives in the closet that will rape you every night, but still choosing that home to buy. You do not have to live on government land.
Did you choose to be born in America? When did you make that choice?
What happens when every home has a rapist in it?
Because your idea of freedom would result in a poor society. Your idea of freedom isn't functional, and it's stupid.
Why? The burden is on you to make these claims good, or they are just mindless babbling. Now, I know you, and I know you think that asserting an opinion is the same as proving a fact, but I have to really stress that no one in the world who thinks would accept something just because someone says it. Certainly, no court or scientific inquiry would accept an argument because "Paul said so."
So please, less babbling, more substantiation.
No? I started off by telling you that I didn't take the rape analogy seriously because rapists do not compare to democratic governments.
Why?
Why do you keep saying "Why do I have to leave?" You don't goddamnit and you clearly aren't leaving. So why do you keep using that as an argument.
Because you keep saying that the resolution is that I have to leave. That if I stay, I endorse the policy. I am asking you how you came to that conclusion. Why is it that I have to leave to assert my independence. See above, where I outline the premise of your argument, a premise you have yet to establish.
You keep referring to government as if it's some divine, all powerful source. It's just a collection of people who write rules for a society based on what the society votes is ethical and efficient.
Which people? Why do they get to write the rules? Why can't I write the rules?
Is it ethical to steal? To use violence? Is it efficient to steal or use violence?
The collective of society. People move in herds, that's human nature.
That's an assertion, not a proof. When you say "human nature" you may as well say "by the word of god". It's not an argument, it's a belief.
There is no "collective of society". In order to act within reality, individuals must do things. Abstracting people into a group, doesn't suddenly create a group which operates independently of the people within it. "The government" is not an actor. It's a term that describes a specific group of individuals, doing specific individual actions.
You've repeatedly avoided being specific when asked numerous times, who is actually doing something in government, and how did they get the authority to do it. Why?
Actually the Senate in Canada isn't like the Senate in the US. It is mostly a ceremonial position, they have almost zero impact on anything.
It's not wise for you to speak about Canada, since you and I are both ignorant about the mechanics of it's bureaucracies. We're both much more competent when it comes to the US, so let's stick to that.
Who makes the rules in the US?
You, your parents, and your grandparents have spent your entire lives living and paying into a democratic government. That alone supports the idea of government 1,000 times more than simply stating it's evil.
We haven't paid into anything. We were threatened with violence, and we paid what we had to in order to avoid it. If there was no threat of violence, we wouldn't have paid a nickel. Which now brings the question, is violence a legitimate means of government?
This is not about good or evil. That's a presumption of moral values. I know you have no moral values, so I am not even going there. I am simply asking you how legitimacy for the state was obtained. You're saying, because we gave money to thieves under threat of harm, the thieves are legitimate.
I want to hear you say that violence is how to obtain legitimacy in the world. I want you to take your argument to its logical conclusion.
YIt seems very cowardly actually, that because you enjoy your pampered life under government you sit back and pay the taxes instead of taking the more diligent route and abandoning government and this purely evil idea that ruins societies. You think rape is evil but pay the rapist to continue doing what he does. You should make yourself sick.
Attacking me personally doesn't make your argument. It doesn't bother me, because you don't know a damn thing about me. It's simple a way for you to avoid having to make a sincere and thoughtful argument.
There is literally nothing you could say about me personally which would hurt my feelings, or make your argument true. And I don't want you to try, because when you do, you make yourself look like an asshole, and that takes away from the fact you're making bad arguments.
I feel sorry for you tbh.
Because that's how governments work.
Because is not an explanation.
Try again. Why must I be taxed?
The people who founded your government.
Let's talk about the people who founded the US. Who were they?
I don't know much Canadian history so I couldn't tell you.
Stick to the US, we're both more comfortable there.
