Topic: 9-9-9 - page 2. (Read 4631 times)

Add in a federal body for the stuff the small sovereign bodies can't really do alone and you would have a great idea for a constitution.

The preferable solution is numerous small sovereign bodies where common but small groups can have their own way. If you're outvoted, you have to move no further than an hour or so.

I kinda figured you'd say that. I suppose if society voted that all ugly people be put to death, we'd justify that one too, or slavery, or old age, or abortion, or eminent domain, or.... I could go on if you like.

You should draw the line at the initiation of force, otherwise government can (and will) grow without bounds. Look what we have now. It's a product of crossing the line on what the definition of property is. If you take other people's property for convenience sake, you will always be violated, ad infinitum.

Given the arbitrariness of involuntary governing practices, similar to what you suggest, ultimately marches us in the direction of tyrannical totalitarianism. It may not be in your lifetime, but it will eventually happen if we don't stand up and assert our rights. Most people only care about themselves and the here and now, unconcerned about what kind of future they will leave their children.

Will we ever learn from our past? I wonder sometimes.

If someone invested in a bicycle to "increase their wealth", it becomes immediately apparent why they're poor.  "Things" generally depreciate in value, that's a horrible investment (:

Is your house inanimate enough?  You own a house.  But if a road needs to pass through it, you lose ownership of the house.  Your ownership was a legal right until society decided that a greater good was at stake.

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

And then you have to pay 9% again when you actually use your earned money. And prices will be higher due to increased production costs.

My dad supported Cain until I told him that 9-9-9 included a 9% sales tax.

Can we just leave out the biological issue for the moment and focus on the inanimate object for a second? I love puppies too, so let's not go there just yet. Kapeesh?

"As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."

That is saying that you have the right to burn your dog and no-one has the right to stop you.  Which simply isn't true.

Why don't you just address what I quoted. It seems complete enough; at least within the context of theft, taxing, society, contract and property. Now try to justify your taxing entity. You can always find something somebody said that probably isn't perfectly spoken or written. Notwithstanding, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they said before or after that is a lie and untruthful. That would be just a teensy weensy bit harsh don't you think? I mean seriously, nobody's perfect.

I can't find the quote.  It was something along the lines of "If you own something, you can do as you please with it under natural law.." but I can't remember where I saw it

What/where did you read that? I certainly didn't quote anything like that. Try again.

The part where he says you are entitled to torture and kill your pets.  Its a fundamental misunderstanding of property rights.

Cute little furry rabbits aside, what part of Spooner's definition of property and ownership are you not in agreement with?

Spooner was wrong.  As we discussed earlier, you can own a dog but you don't have a right to set it on fire. 

apparently, you dont understand the term "social contract".

Is the social contract of the USA not the US constitution?

Oh, I get the whole society "concept". There's nothing wrong with individuals collectively working together to achieve a goal. That's just like any association, or solidarity. Name your flavor (Rotary Club, Red Cross, Religious groups, Insurance companies, etc.). The same could be said of a government except that they too must form in a voluntary way otherwise it isn't free association anymore but force and coercion. That isn't what we call "consent to be governed".

I have no problem with spending your money on any number of things, just so long as those activities don't infringe on the freedoms of others. As Lysander Spooner said it, "The proprietor of any thing has the right to an exclusive ownership, control, and dominion, of and over the thing of which he is the proprietor...  He has a right, as against all other men, to control it according to his own will and pleasure... Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to exercise any authority, control, or dominion over it, without his consent; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. It is not theirs, but his. They must leave it entirely subject to his will. His will, and not their wills, must control it. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."