George Carlin describes today's world eloquently... - page 3.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:39:14 PM

...snip...
There will be a good portion of the populace that won't, we can band together and change a state to one without border restrictions. If we can't even do that much, we're not a significant movement and thus not notable. The defense forces must have eliminated all issues with our borders in your case.

At least you know where you stand. There is nothing to stop you all moving to Arizona right now and having the border dismantled. That won't happen - there is no American constituency for that.

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:37:07 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:34:02 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:32:56 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:31:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:27:29 PM

...snip...

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

That should be up to the individual states who have borders. It's not a federal issue.

So if your state has voted for having a border and a defence force you are ok with it.

I would be against it. Immigrants only add economic benefit unless they only come to feed off entitlements. In a constitutional America, I would just move to another state if I didn't like the law.

Correct me if I am wrong but ALL US states support the idea of a border and a defence force. Where are you going to move to?

There will be a good portion of the populace that won't, we can band together and change a state to one without border restrictions. If we can't even do that much, we're not a significant movement and thus not notable. The defense forces must have eliminated all issues with our borders in your case.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:34:02 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:32:56 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:31:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:27:29 PM

...snip...

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

That should be up to the individual states who have borders. It's not a federal issue.

So if your state has voted for having a border and a defence force you are ok with it.

I would be against it. Immigrants only add economic benefit unless they only come to feed off entitlements. In a constitutional America, I would just move to another state if I didn't like the law.

Correct me if I am wrong but ALL US states support the idea of a border and a defence force. Where are you going to move to?

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:32:56 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:31:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:27:29 PM

...snip...

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

That should be up to the individual states who have borders. It's not a federal issue.

So if your state has voted for having a border and a defence force you are ok with it.

I would be against it. Immigrants only add economic benefit unless they only come to feed off entitlements. In a constitutional America, I would just move to another state if I didn't like the law.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:31:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:27:29 PM

...snip...

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

That should be up to the individual states who have borders. It's not a federal issue.

So if your state has voted for having a border and a defence force you are ok with it.

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:27:29 PM

...snip...

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

That should be up to the individual states who have borders. It's not a federal issue.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:27:29 PM

...snip...

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:25:52 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:21:31 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on October 24, 2011, 02:20:20 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitable end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

Hawker's position is that society already voted your rights away, so you better have a damn good reason and convince everyone that you deserve them back!

He also rests on the assumption that denying people myself is affecting them as if they own me by default. It's incredulous.

You can do as you please. I already said that

What you can't do is tell other people how they should live. You have your view on how to interpret the US constitution. If your view is enforced, that affects how other people live. And there are other opinions. Your view is just one of many and if you want yours adopted, you do need to justify it.

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily and at a state level is apparently coercive?

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:22:55 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:13:06 PM

...snip...

You are a part of the society whose constitution you want implemented in your way. That affects the other people in that society. If you are harmless you can spout any opinions you want and no-one cares. But on things like tax, war, social policy, yours is just one opinion among many and if you can't be bothered explaining your views you can't complain if they are ignored.

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitable end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

You live is a spectacularly rich country with more freedom than 90% of the world's population. Do you really think the US will be the first rich free society to collapse?

I don't live to compete nor compare. I don't live to be greater than the 90% or not to be in the bottom. I live to achieve what I deem my happiness and to achieve it for others. I know the US won't be the first to collapse but I know it had a lot of potential in its inception unlike any nation before it: A decentralized land of sovereign entities. A grand of example of competition on a political scale; true choice on how one can live his life but this has long vanished into a shell this nation once was.

I will feel a loss once its entirely gone. There's no telling if there will ever be anything like this country again.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:21:31 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on October 24, 2011, 02:20:20 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitable end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

Hawker's position is that society already voted your rights away, so you better have a damn good reason and convince everyone that you deserve them back!

He also rests on the assumption that denying people myself is affecting them as if they own me by default. It's incredulous.

You can do as you please. I already said that

What you can't do is tell other people how they should live. You have your view on how to interpret the US constitution. If your view is enforced, that affects how other people live. And there are other opinions. Your view is just one of many and if you want yours adopted, you do need to justify it.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:13:06 PM

...snip...

You are a part of the society whose constitution you want implemented in your way. That affects the other people in that society. If you are harmless you can spout any opinions you want and no-one cares. But on things like tax, war, social policy, yours is just one opinion among many and if you can't be bothered explaining your views you can't complain if they are ignored.

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitable end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

You live is a spectacularly rich country with more freedom than 90% of the world's population. Do you really think the US will be the first rich free society to collapse?

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: BitterTea on October 24, 2011, 02:20:20 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitable end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

Hawker's position is that society already voted your rights away, so you better have a damn good reason and convince everyone that you deserve them back!

He also rests on the assumption that denying people myself is affecting them as if they own me by default. It's incredulous.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:16:23 PM

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitable end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

Hawker's position is that society already voted your rights away, so you better have a damn good reason and convince everyone that you deserve them back!

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:13:06 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:08:28 PM

...snip...

I don't have to provide an explanation. I believe I am entitled to my life and everything I produce. What makes their claim to my life greater? To hell with that.

Tell me why you have the right to regulate and admonish my life? The burden is on you. I laid claim to this body and my breath when I emerged from the whom. It was by my own will I chose to consume food, drink and walk. If I cannot own it, I will rather die before you take one cent from me!

I am in control of this life! I can end it if I so chose! The claim is entirely mine! Not yours, not the poors, not god's nor societies! Mine and only mine!

You are a part of the society whose constitution you want implemented in your way. That affects the other people in that society. If you are harmless you can spout any opinions you want and no-one cares. But on things like tax, war, social policy, yours is just one opinion among many and if you can't be bothered explaining your views you can't complain if they are ignored.

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitably end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 02:08:28 PM

...snip...

I don't have to provide an explanation. I believe I am entitled to my life and everything I produce. What makes their claim to my life greater? To hell with that.

Tell me why you have the right to regulate and admonish my life? The burden is on you. I laid claim to this body and my breath when I emerged from the whom. It was by my own will I chose to consume food, drink and walk. If I cannot own it, I will rather die before you take one cent from me!

I am in control of this life! I can end it if I so chose! The claim is entirely mine! Not yours, not the poors, not god's nor societies! Mine and only mine!

You are a part of the society whose constitution you want implemented in your way. That affects the other people in that society. If you are harmless you can spout any opinions you want and no-one cares. But on things like tax, war, social policy, your's is just one opinion among many and if you can't be bothered explaining your views you can't complain if they are ignored.

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 02:05:49 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 01:57:02 PM

...snip...

It's a very objective interpretation. The fact that we cannot agree on the constitution means this country is doomed. We will collapse like every other nation that has no principles. Regulating and admonishing life by mere and ever-changing whims is not my idea of liberty especially when a vote can be bought for no cost at all.

Once a right is taken it will not be easily reinstated. Gradually the smallest government will become the largest if there are no limits. A totalitarian regime is inevitable and is already here in our case.

No, when I own my own life and everything it produces will I consider myself truly free. Rights are not provisioned. They are inherent. I either own myself or not at all. There is no compromise.

Everyone thinks their own interpretation of their constitution is objective.

You really have no idea what a totalitarian regime would be like if you think the US is one.

Rights are legal constructs. To say they are inherent means that they are written in the stars or something and that everyone agrees what they are and what they mean. If you believe that, you have to provide an explanation why the majority of Americans don't agree with you. Are they blind?

I don't have to provide an explanation. I believe I am entitled to my life and everything I produce. What makes their claim to my life greater? To hell with that.

Tell me why you have the right to regulate and admonish my life? The burden is on you. I laid claim to this body and my breath when I emerged from the womb. It was by my own will I chose to consume food, drink and walk. If I cannot own it, I will rather die before you take one cent from me!

I am in control of this life! I can end it if I so chose! The claim is entirely mine! Not yours, not the poors, not god's nor societies! Mine and only mine!

If you think you are so entitled to me, then you should be able to abuse me to your whim when my body is lying on the ground without a deliberate movement!

In the end, I am in control! This is my life!

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 01:57:02 PM

...snip...

It's a very objective interpretation. The fact that we cannot agree on the constitution means this country is doomed. We will collapse like every other nation that has no principles. Regulating and admonishing life by mere and ever-changing whims is not my idea of liberty especially when a vote can be bought for no cost at all.

Once a right is taken it will not be easily reinstated. Gradually the smallest government will become the largest if there are no limits. A totalitarian regime is inevitable and is already here in our case.

No, when I own my own life and everything it produces will I consider myself truly free. Rights are not provisioned. They are inherent. I either own myself or not at all. There is no compromise.

Everyone thinks their own interpretation of their constitution is objective.

You really have no idea what a totalitarian regime would be like if you think the US is one.

Rights are legal constructs. To say they are inherent means that they are written in the stars or something and that everyone agrees what they are and what they mean. If you believe that, you have to provide an explanation why the majority of Americans don't agree with you. Are they blind?

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 01:54:30 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 01:46:14 PM

...snip...
No, you cannot. Freedom requires a government to follow its own laws. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan occupations are unconstitutional. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Marriage legislation on a federal level is unconstitutional. All of this is the Federal government stepping out of bounds. If a government can compromise on its own limits, it has none. There is no freedom in this case.

That's your opinion of what your constitution means. There are other opinions. The very fact that you are allowed to voice an opinion means you are free. Can you imagine a Syrian being able to make the post you just made? No - he would be castrated and then beaten to death. That is why we use the word "free" to describe you and "oppressed" to describe Syrians.

It's a very objective interpretation. The fact that we cannot agree on the constitution means this country is doomed. We will collapse like every other nation that has no principles. Regulating and admonishing life by mere and ever-changing whims is not my idea of liberty especially when a vote can be bought for no cost at all.

Once a right is taken it will not be easily reinstated. Gradually the smallest government will become the largest if there are no limits. A totalitarian regime is inevitable and is already here in our case.

No, when I own my own life and everything it produces will I consider myself truly free. Rights are not provisioned. They are inherent. I either own myself or not at all. There is no compromise.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 01:46:14 PM

...snip...
No, you cannot. Freedom requires a government to follow its own laws. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan occupations are unconstitutional. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Marriage legislation on a federal level is unconstitutional. All of this is the Federal government stepping out of bounds. If a government can compromise on its own limits, it has none. There is no freedom in this case.

That's your opinion of what your constitution means. There are other opinions. The very fact that you are allowed to voice an opinion means you are free. Can you imagine a Syrian being able to make the post you just made? No - he would be castrated and then beaten to death. That is why we use the word "free" to describe you and "oppressed" to describe Syrians.

I.Goldstein

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 01:43:32 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 01:37:57 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 24, 2011, 01:36:15 PM

Quote from: I.Goldstein on October 24, 2011, 01:26:10 PM

Quote from: cbeast on October 24, 2011, 07:26:52 AM

Carlin was wrong. They do not own us any more than King George did. We fight with whatever we have to be free. Crypto-currency is a bloodless revolution. We're not fighting the government, for we are the government. We fight the corporate criminals that are beyond the reach of the law makers we entrusted. The criminals are too smart, but we are smarter and will defeat them. They try to buy our politicians, but they do not buy the will of the people. It's karma.

So the government is your voice. So everything the government does is your voice. You support Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the IRS not recognizing civil unions. Your voice is for bailouts, tax breaks, government subsidies. Your voice is for corporatism, eminent domain, drug laws.

Most people like some stuff on that list. Democratic government is a series of messy compromises so on most issues, there will be a sizeable constituency in support of the government position.

There is no compromise when it comes to freedom.

You can be for freedom and on either sides of issues like Iraq, eminent domain, drug laws, Libya, Afghanistan and civil unions.

No, you cannot. Freedom requires a government to follow its own laws. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan occupations are unconstitutional. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Marriage legislation on a federal level is unconstitutional. All of this is the Federal government stepping out of bounds. If a government can compromise on its own limits, it has none. There is no freedom in this case.

Topic: George Carlin describes today's world eloquently... - page 3. (Read 4623 times)