Topic: Make sure you pay your taxes to the government that spies on you! - page 2. (Read 5588 times)

Quote from: Hawker on May 21, 2013, 09:14:11 AM

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence. And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself.

You make threats saying that my support for democracy entitles you to use violence against me. You are against democracy because you personally want to be in a position to use violence.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I am against Democracy because is it war waged with ballots, and the side with the most votes is authorizing violence against the side with the fewer votes simply because there are more of them.
It's might makes right, plain and simple.

You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself. What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down? Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on May 21, 2013, 08:57:08 AM

Quote from: Hawker on May 21, 2013, 08:31:27 AM

Quote from: Hawker on May 21, 2013, 08:31:27 AM

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence. And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself.

You make threats saying that my support for democracy entitles you to use violence against me. You are against democracy because you personally want to be in a position to use violence. You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself. What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down? Just how violent do you feel entitled to be?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence. And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence. And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths.

As I said, if taxes are spent stopping people like you from using violence to achieve their goals, its money well spent.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.

Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on May 20, 2013, 05:18:37 PM

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent. Of course I would choose to have you arrested, prosecuted, punished and I would sue for damages. If you are violent, that's exactly what you deserve.

What an interesting thing it is that when pushed, it turns out your idea of a free society is one in which you personally are free to attack people. For all your whining about our existing system, at least we do have freedom of speech.

Back to the main topic of paying taxes for the government to spy on people. If there are people who want to use violence to achieve their aims or just for vent their frustration that their ideas are never going to win elections, I want the government to spy on them and do whatever it takes to stop them. A free society where people can peacefully debate ideas is one of the great achievements of our civilization and as such its well worth the taxes paid to defend it. Best money ever spent!

Stampbit

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

the government doesnt spy on you, it just overhears sounds coming from your bedroom.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AzureEngineer on May 20, 2013, 03:16:03 PM

Quote from: Severian on May 20, 2013, 03:04:54 PM

So if government is like a business, I can boycott it and find something else that works for me?

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted.

Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen.

If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you?

I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole.

Well, if you think being stuffed in a cage and being fed with food bought with your stolen money is wrong, you should starve yourself. Roll Eyes

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: AzureEngineer on May 20, 2013, 03:16:03 PM

Quote from: Severian on May 20, 2013, 03:04:54 PM

So if government is like a business, I can boycott it and find something else that works for me?

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted.

Quote from: AzureEngineer on May 20, 2013, 03:24:18 PM

Unless you grow your own food and live in a cabin out in the woods, you purchase all three of those things every day.

What kind of moron are you? The government doesn't make the food I eat, nor did it build the house I live in.

Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen.

If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you?

I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on May 20, 2013, 04:38:41 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 04:33:50 PM

Quote from: myrkul on May 20, 2013, 04:38:41 PM

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. To say nothing of your comment that without a State, you consider murder to be A-OK.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 04:33:50 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 04:33:50 PM

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

EDIT: I suspect another difference is that I've written a program that makes a socket connection to mtgox in C99 in between fending off death threats. My work is done so off to bed Tongue

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on May 20, 2013, 04:24:33 PM

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 04:16:31 PM

I've not avoided anything. I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence. In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

You have edited my post again to avoid the threat to hurt me. You've stated that you will use violence if we meet and if I don't change my beliefs to suit you.

We see where you stand and that you won't back down. Luckily we do have laws and jails so that if you act on your absurd sense of entitlement, there will be a cage with your name on it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on May 20, 2013, 04:24:33 PM

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?

Probably not, I tried to some time ago.

He's gone from advocating state violence against me to outright saying that state violence is the only thing protecting me from him.

wdmw

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 04:16:31 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 04:16:31 PM

I've not avoided anything. I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence. In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds. Any chance of moving on?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

I've not avoided anything. I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence. In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

I've not avoided anything. I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence. In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Quote from: Severian on May 20, 2013, 03:57:32 PM

...snip...

I've not avoided anything. I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence. In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.

I've always made that clear. Your response has been to say that you will treat my support for democracy and a state with a monopoly on violence as an excuse to use violence yourself and then call it "self defence."

That's thuggery.

Here you are standing behind your threat of violence and editing out references to it in an effort to change the subject. Except you seem to be saying that its not a threat to join in my being strangled.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 20, 2013, 03:44:49 PM

A movement to repeal it or amend it might though Cheesy

Trying to repeal the Patriot Act would be construed as terrorism by Homeland Security. Wink

Its a big ask I know. But people like the ACLU and so on do act as a brake on government and the government does tend to back off when faced with outraged citizens.

The bigger point is that you live in a place where the law is basically OK. So do I. Scrapping that for a place where the local imam spends Friday warning that moneylenders, Jews and homosexuals are a threat to heaven and that you go to heaven with 80 virgins for killing infidels does not appeal to me. So for me, the state is a good thing.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM