Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Why mass produced electric cars ain't gonna happen any time soon. - Page 9

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Bruce Richmond on October 4, 2009, 3:51 pm
 



In other words you want to apply the *spin* that you prefer.

You wrote, "However, one of the main themes of my website is the
importance of truth."  Your statement, "Copied is not a good word
either. I have the author's permission to put it on my site." shows
that you like to color truth to your liking.  Saying that copy is not
a good word implies that it is not correct. So you seem perfectly
happy to write an ambiguous statement so long as the end result
pleases you.  That hardly emphasizes "the importance of truth".

Posted by YouDontOwnMe on September 27, 2009, 6:02 am
 


Robert Copcutt wrote:

I notice you avoided my question. Are you saying the end justifies the
means?

As to your question. I've left the country, not the continent. And I
understand full well the point you want to drive at. I HAVE traveled
MUCH. I've seen the narrowmindedness to which you infer. The
homogenization of the USA does not exist.

I didn't understand it the first time I heard it. I Southerner referred
to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Now I
embrace it as a statement of truth. A truth that is not presented in the
government indoctrination centers, er, the public schools. Truly,
history is written by the victors. I notice that Neon John's sigfile
says he from Tellico Plains, Occupied TN. Occupied Tennessee, as in
occupied Iraq and occupied Afghanistan. But I digress.

I notice you avoided my question. Are you saying the end justifies the
means? Oh... I asked that already.



I paid it more heed. I even had several paragraphs written. I deleted
them. You almost had me chasing your distraction. There are unchallenged
assumptions in that "receiving". I'm not challenging them, other than
"Man was sent to earth with two tasks: To use the short opportunity of
free will"... Free will that is violated EVERY time the State extorts
man's property from him via taxation.



I've donated web space to a local boy scout unit for their purposes.
Their concepts on "Citizenship" are greatly in error, thus I have a
serious conflict of interest. Even so, the rest of the program in
general does help develop good qualities in the youth involved, so I
help out as I can.

Good Citizenship starts with "do your fellow citizen no harm." A concept
that is violated EVERY time the State (misnomered a.k.a. 'government')
is involved.



Taxation is extortion.

You are arguing the end justifies the means again. You are arguing "In
principle extortion is one reasonable way to collect a contribution."

Tell me please, what is the difference between an armed robber in an
alleyway saying "give me your money or I'll hurt you" and a tax
collector saying "give me your money or I'll hurt you"?



Taxation is extortion. You keep ignoring the point. You want to
immediately get the topic on what to do with the extorted funds.

Taxation is inherently unjust because it relies on extortion to achieve
its ends.


Adam Smith's hidden hand works just fine to feed 8 million New Yorkers.
NYC doesn't have, and doesn't need, a ministry of food importation to
make society organized to feed the New Yorkers. Hunt's point - Been
there, done that. Somehow, in all that chaos, the food gets to their plates.

You've used two terms that I'm classifying as vague: Society and
function. As the poster "OK" said in a reply to one of your posts:

        For any service you can name, there is a way to do
        it with user fees and/or volunteerism rather than
        taxation.  People who use services pay for services.
        People who believe services are important,
        contribute to them with their time and/or money.

        "But what if an essential service doesn't have
        enough volunteers/donations/user fees to operate?" you
        might ask.  The answer is simple.  If individuals, in
        the aggregate, don't care enough about a service to
        support it, how can it be "essential?"


Non sequitur. Unsupported assertion. Non compos mentis even. Cognitive
dissonance is like that. I notice you snipped the description of
cognitive dissonance completely out of your reply.

My identity label has nothing to do with my words... Except for the one
I choose to presently post under, which itself is a message and ground
zero for my concepts. Truth in advertising.



It IS. Do not pass go, do not collect 200. Taxation is extortion. EVERY
TIME. Give us the money we demand, or we will hurt you.

"It can be BUT..."

        but conj. 1. On the contrary.

The use of the word "but" or the word "however" erase the preceding
words, comments, concepts. Mr. Copcutt, you seem to be a very
intelligent person, but... (Insulting, isn't it? Not so subtle when
pointed out eh?)

Taxation can be extortion, but...

Sorry Mr. Copcutt, you don't get a bye on this one.

You are challenging me to propose a workable alternative to extortion.
<irony> But... </irony> you don't want me to focus on the extortion.

On an intellectual level, the challenge is intriguing, <irony> but...
</irony> I'm not biting at this time. This extortion is accepted without
critical thinking even by fellows as intelligent as you are. There are
belief systems in place that must be exposed, challenged, and done away
with, to clear one's mind to make room for the possibilities and
solutions. Until those belief systems are wiped, the beliefs will also
taint the perceptions as to what the problem to be solved actually is.



Not frequently. Always. Give us your money or we will hurt you.



Start by re-defining the problem to be solved. Before that, an
understanding of what and how the "problem" is presently defined needs
to be examined.  I'm following you on this trail only because you have
minutely mollified me in regard to the issue that taxation is extortion.



<chuckle>!</chuckle>
I'm sure you believe that. If it helps you to believe I have cognitive
dissonance, thats fine too. I'll just keep identifying when you post
non-sequiturs. We don't need to discuss the probability of cognitive
dissonance flaring up in you when said non-sequiters are posted.

By the way, I consciously use mirroring when I post. It's a subtle,
deliberate sarcasm when I do it.



Nobody organizes the transport of food to the island of Manhattan to
feed the 8 million residents of the area, yet somehow it gets there.
Your term "organise society" is vague.

"[Extortion] is the best way found so far" to do this vague thing,
"organise society"



The collection process IS extortionate. Give us this property we demand
or we will hurt you. ALL taxation, ALL law, is based upon do what we
tell you or we will hurt you.

A better collection system is needed for the vague purpose of organizing
society?

While I agree with you that the planet is in a world of hurt (pun not
intended), it doesn't justify enslaving humans to correct it.

Viable alternatives you said above? Okay. Are you going to defecate on
your dinner plate? Do you know anybody who would? Are you going to
urinate in your drinking water?

The issue is when people don't see the linkage between their actions and
crapping where it gets back on their dinner plates. Education is the
answer. And you know it, because that is what you are attempting to do
with your web site. Likewise, that is the purpose of my web site on its
topics. No, I don't care to show it. It's more USA oriented right now
anyway.



Exactly. "Force will be used."

What force will be used to accomplish "Give us your money or we will
hurt you"?



Yes. So when a parasite, er, tax collector says "Give us your money or
we will hurt you", people need to see that such behavior is not
tolerated. Now you know why I'm posting as I am.



"Give us your money or we will hurt you" IS robbery, so as you have
agreed, I personally have the right to use force to stop such robbery.



Unsupported assertion. Statement of your "belief".

Taxation is extortion.

Not paying extortion is robbing society? Non-sequitur.



Above, I asked:
        I want you to explain what the UK will do to somebody
        who refuses to pay a tax.

You answered:
        You know that force will be used.

What force will be used?
If I resist that force, what force will be used next?



Replacing what you chopped, so what you are ignoring is on the table:

        I refuse to relinquish those 50 euros to the State.
        What is the State going to do?
        Will the State do what States have done from time
        immemorial?


Non sequitur. Cognitive dissonance?

Translation: I don't want to answer the questions you're asking because
I'm starting to see where you are leading me, (especially if you've read
my reply to Melodie in France). I don't want to go there. So I'll just
chop the questions out of the post and hope you don't notice. Then I'll
make a glib comment about not having time to write perfect replies to you.



Irrelevant detailing distraction.


Have you ever read Robert A. Heinlein?

He said it so well:

        Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of
        you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe
        to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed
        voluntarily.

        Paying that debt can entail anything from years of
        patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult
        it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

        But there is no reward at all for doing what other
        people expect of you, and to do so is not merely
        difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a
        footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few
        minutes of your time, please — this won't take long."

Or "just a few euros of your money, please - this won't take much."

        Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your
        life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall
        into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they
        quickly snowball to the point where these parasites
        will use up 100 percent of your time — and squawk for
        more!

        So learn to say No — and to be rude about it when
        necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry
        out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no
        time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble
        away your life and leave none of it for you.

        (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor
        for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be
        yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)

And to that I add: Do not confuse "duty" with what other people will use
violence against you to make you do.




And you are ignoring mine.

Since the context got fragmented, here's your initial statement to
reacquaint you with that context:

You wrote:
        Tax is supposed to be an exchange of money for common
        services that everyone can use. It is also supposed to
        be a way of levelling out the playing field. Those who
        are lucky enough to be fit and strong have a duty to
        help those who are not so lucky. The alternative is to
        go and live alone in the wilderness but that is tough,
        even for the fit.

I asked:
        Do you believe people should be forced to contribute to
        charity [...]

You wrote:
        [...] coercion to help others is essential

In a word, "yes". You believe people should be forced (coerced) to
contribute to charity.

Whether it's taking the 50 euro excess I have and giving it to my
neighbor to level the playing field, or making the fit and strong help
the less lucky, you are perfectly fine with using force against people
who do not want to do what you want them to do.

You are the one that connected duty to help the less fortunate via and
with taxation. Taxation is extortion accomplished by the State's threat
and willingness to use violence to get compliance. That violence will
escalate to the use of guns if the victim of the state resists such
victimization.

You are the one invoking the State, via taxation, to use violence and
threat of violence, to force others to contribute to charity.


-------------------------------------

 > And you seem to have misunderstood my point.

I do not misunderstand your point.

You are the one invoking the State, via taxation, to use violence and
threat of violence, to force others to contribute to charity.

Your point is to change the topic.

I wrote:

        You write that those who are fit and strong have a duty
        to those who are not. Do you believe fit and strong
        people should be forced to help those not fit and
        strong at the barrel of a gun.

You wrote:
        The USA gun culture is sick.

This is a non-sequitur and is irrelevant. Cognitive dissonance?

You also wrote:
        The Japanese get very high degrees of social compliance
        by using the fear of social ostracism.

This is also a non-sequitur as well. It is just as irrelevant. As a
lynch pin in your attempt to change the topic it needs to be shot down,
so I address it.

You are comparing social embarrassment with violence and threat of
violence to achieve compliance.

Compliance meaning to make somebody do "something". The "something" to
be done is missing, making your entire statement vague and meaningless.

On the other hand, this dialog has been about using force to gain
compliance with the demand to relinquish ownership of one's property.
Give us your money or we will hurt you.

Continuing on that course, you bring up the following to continue your
attempt to escape from the topic of the State's threat and use of
violence to force compliance with the State's demands. An act you invoke
via "taxation".



Right. You "NEGOTIATE" an "AGREEMENT".

        ne·go·ti·ate (v. ne·go·ti·at·ed, ne·go·ti·at·ing,
        ne·go·ti·ates. --intr. 1. To confer with another or
        others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement.
        --tr. 1. To arrange or settle by discussion and mutual
        agreement.

        a·gree·ment n. 1. The act of agreeing.

        a·gree v. a·greed, a·gree·ing, a·grees. --intr. 1. To
        grant consent; accede.

When you "NEGOTIATE" an "AGREEMENT" freewill is not violated.



And freewill is still not violated.


I have helped many a person in need on the road. When asked can I give
you something for helping me, I say, You just help the next person.

It is by being helped myself that I have learned how valuable helping
others is.

When I help others, It is my choice, freewill is NOT violated.

Bottom line, if you don't feel good after helping another, then you
shouldn't have helped that person, AND you should not help them again.




Right. And that token has value. Now who owns MY token?



Free will is not violated. Rights to property are not violated.

Noted: Your removal of your unsupported assertion of scientific tests
proving that charity needs extortion, er, coercion and my citations and
refutation of same.



You assert that "life is complicated."
The complications are not in evidence.

Your words, "stopping a country full of millions of people [from]
becoming total chaos requires..." implies that if "X" is not done,
"Chaos" will happen.
The "Chaos" that will happen is not in evidence.
The required "X", the required complicated system, is not in evidence.

You wrote "stopping a country full of millions of people [from] becoming
total chaos..." What is the difference between the chaos that presently
exists and the "total chaos" you are worried about?

If "Life is complicated", then chaos already exists. If the solution to
chaos is more complications, then I suggest you need to re-think your
position.

The case for the connection between chaos and complicated is simple.

        cha·os n. 1. A condition or place of great disorder OR
        CONFUSION.

        com·pli·cat·ed adj. 1. Containing intricately combined
        or involved parts. 2.  NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND or
        analyze.





Charities exist by the freewill of those donating. States (a.k.a. the
misnomered 'governments') exist by violence that denies free will: Do
what we say, give us what we demand, or we will hurt you.




A country is the territory of a State. The State says, "In this
territory, do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you."

You are suggesting that I find another state to tell me, "Do what we
tell you to do in this territory or we will hurt you, but not as bad as
that other State will hurt you."

When any State says, "Do what we tell you or we will hurt you," they
mean, "We will kill you if you don't do what we tell you after we hurt
you a little bit."




That problem is spelled G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T.



You've almost invoked the fictitious social contract. Let's just nip
that in the bud. I posted that for Melodie of France. You may read it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.homepower/msg/7c551a353636a98a

There is a HUGE difference between what I agree to do of my own free
will and what I am forced to do to avoid the State using and escalating
violence against me, up to, and including killing me for non-compliance.



You have ignored the questions.

What gives you the right to make rules for me? What gives you the right
to order me to follow those rules? What gives you the right to say what
I can and can not do?

It certainly is about owning. You don't own me so YOU CAN'T make rules
for me; order me to follow those rules; say what I can and can not do.

Below, you have confirmed that you agree: Voting for legislators does
NOT give them the right to do what you don't have a right to do.

YOU do not have the right to make rules for me; order me to follow the
rules; say what I can or can not do, therefore:
YOU can NOT give the legislators the right to make rules for me; order
me to follow the rules; tell me what I can or can not do.

If YOU elect someone into the State (a.k.a. the misnomer of
'government') YOU give them the right to make rules that effect YOU.

You do not, and can not, give them the right to make rules that effect ME.



        ad hom·i·nem adj. Appealing to personal considerations
        rather than to logic or reason.



You are just re-asserting, without support, what you have already
asserted without support.



"[O]nly works when others [...] want the same thing"

Like don't violate their life, liberty, and property?



I asked:
        Do you believe people should be forced to contribute to
        charity [...]

You wrote:
        [...] coercion to help others is essential.




Label it as arrogance to give you an out, if you must. Ignore the
inquiry of my understanding of your belief in 'government' because it
scares you, if you must. Choose to ignore a lesson you could learn, if
you must. It is your free will to even have the dialog.



Not "how it may appear". How it IS. If you do not obey the State's
commands, the State will initiate violence against you. If you still
refuse to obey, the State will continue to escalate violence until you
obey or you are dead.



In other words, you agree it appears that Law and Enforcement of law are
extortion, then you remove said agreement that it appears that Law and
Enforcement of law are extortion.



My challenge to you is to take the blinders off.

By definition, the State, a.k.a. the misnomer of 'government' is a
terrorist organization. The terrorists in the organization will not
hesitate to use violence against you if you do not do what they want.

Defined in the United States statutes:

        the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
        involve acts dangerous to human life [...]
        appear to be intended -
        to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
        and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
        of the United States.

Of course, when it's the terrorists making the laws, they are going to
exempt themselves. This is what was removed from the brackets with the
elipsis: [that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States
or of any State;]

It's not just about the tax. Never was. The issue is "authority". It
doesn't exist either.


By example. Just like teaching charity addressed above.



Are you admitting to telling me answers you think I want to hear?



If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the
newspaper, you are mis-informed. ~Mark Twain.

There is a provable mainstream media bias in the United States. The
mainstream will NOT address certain topics. That leaves the web and the
attendant problem of caveat emptor.


That is not a tax. That is a rental fee.



So you have stumbled on the exception to the rule. When your rights are
violated, that is the only time you can tell somebody else what to do:
Basically, stop violating me and my rights.



An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. Your assertion
is wrong.

I'll give you the proof of my refutation anyway.


In the case of rent payment for service:
You and the tenant agreed on what the service was to be, what the price
was to be, and what the conditions for breaking the agreement was to be.
You entered into a contract without coercion. Free will was not violated.

In the case of tax payment for service:
You would have ordered the victim, er, tenant to lease the property and
pay you the rent(tax) whether the future tenant needed to lease the
property, whether the future tenant wanted to lease the property,
whether the future tenant could afford to rent the property, and you
would have threatened to hurt the future tenant if he didn't pay the
rent. Free will is violated at every turn.



Says who?



They have a right to expect you to pay for a service you didn't order,
didn't use, and can't afford?

No, they demand that you pay for a service you didn't order, didn't use,
and can't afford, and threaten to hurt you if you don't pay for it.



It's not about what I "like". It's about the contradictions and illogic
of believing a myth that is no more real than the myth of the tooth faerie.


Another unsupported assertion.




Enforcement of this tax will still require goons from the State to say
give us your money or we will hurt you.



The definition of "Chaos", referred to by you twice, and implied by you
as "something bad", is not in evidence.

Taxation is extortion. You can not evade that reality.




Your "reply", noted without comment.



Therefore, you have asserted that you don't care about MY property rights.

Neither does a carjacker, a bank robber, a convenience store robber, a
burglar, a pirate, an embezzler, a swindler, a thief, etcetera ad nauseam.




It does NOT matter what the tax laws are SUPPOSED to do. What matters is
what the tax laws ACTUALLY do.

Tax laws are a demand by the State to "Give us your money (property) or
we will hurt you." By its very nature, tax laws VIOLATE property rights.



You propose a different method that is STILL a demand to "Give us your
money or we will hurt you."

By that reality, a tax law that would work "as well as it might" would
be one where all the slaves, er, citizens had radio controlled explosive
collars. Don't pay the tax and a button push separates your head from
your shoulders. Now that would be a tax that "works as well as it
might". Don't bother with sending the sheriff, just push a button.

Replacing the context you accidentally removed when you cut to write
your answer:


the best I could make of your intent.

        ped·ant·ry n. 1. Pedantic attention to detail or rules.
        2. An instance of pedantic behavior. 3. The habit of
        mind or manner characteristic of a pedant.

This is a bad thing? attention to detail ABOUT the rules? Like the fact
that the rules are: "Do what we say or we will hurt you"?

        ped·ant n. 1. One who pays undue attention to book
        learning and formal rules. 2. One who exhibits one's
        learning or scholarship ostentatiously. 3. Obsolete. A
        schoolmaster.

Compare to:
        My observation is that people who have not travelled
        much tend to be narrow minded.

        [...] until you take the time to study it you are
        denying yourself an education.

        This is where your lack of life experience becomes
        obvious.

        A better way is to read books.


h. states: A law is a command telling me what to do. You disagree with
h. Are you saying a law is NOT a command telling me what to do?



        lim·it n. 1. The point, edge, or line beyond which
        something cannot or may not proceed. 3. A confining or
        restricting object, agent, or influence. --lim·it tr.v.
        lim·it·ed, lim·it·ing, lim·its. 1. To confine or
        restrict within a boundary or bounds.

        con·trol tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols.
        1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence
        over; direct. 2. To hold in restraint; check.
        --con·trol n. 1. Authority or ability to manage or
        direct. 2.a. One that controls; a controlling agent,
        device, or organization.

        soph·is·try n. 1. Plausible but fallacious
        argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or
        fallacious argument.

A limit IS a control.



i. states: You don't have the right (authority) to command me.

You assert that statement is wrong. In doing so, you are stating you you
DO have the right to command me. In doing so, you are stating that you
have a higher right to control my actions than I do.

How did you get a higher claim on my actions than I myself have?

I don't remember being sold to you.

Are you my master?
Are you a dictator?
Are you a king?
Are you a God?

Your "because" reasons are irrelevant. They do NOT give you a higher
claim on my actions than I myself have.



In order to prove i. is wrong, you need to show how you got a higher
claim on my actions than I myself have. Show your work. Use the back
side of this page if you need more room.

Otherwise: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.


You DON'T have the right to tell me, "Give me your property or I will
hurt you." Personally, the legislators don't have that right either.
They don't have it personally, you don't have it personally, You can't
give it to them by voting for them.

So you DON'T have the right to demand a certain level of cooperation
from me to give up MY property to you because you demand it.




Let me see if I've got this straight, I can vote for candidate A, whose
laws will be in the form of "Do what we tell you or we will hurt you",
or I can vote for candidate B, whose laws will be in the form of "Do
what we tell you or we will hurt you".

When you vote for the lessor of two evils, you are STILL voting FOR evil.

Nope. I don't see it. I don't see a power to change anything. That being
the case, I'm NOT giving away anything by not partaking of the cult
ritual of State worship.

By partaking of the cult ritual of State worship, I would be sanctifying
the choosing of evil.



Sorry. I forgot the tags.
<sarcasm>
Well... I suppose I could accept extortion as a form of dishonesty.
</sarcasm>




Mr. Copcutt, are you not paying attention?

ALL law enforcement is "Do what we say or we will hurt you."

Tax law says "Give us your property". If you refuse to give them the
property, The State goons, i.e. the police FORCE, will initiate violence
against you. If you continue to resist, they will escalate and continue
to escalate the violence against you until you comply or they kill you.
State goons will ALWAYS act goonishly if you don't obey the State's demands.



I wrote:
        We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are
        created equal...

You wrote:
        That all men are created equal is not a self-evident
        truth. That we all have equal rights, maybe, but in
        every other way we are all different.

I chose to not make comment about your lack of knowledge of the American
Declaration of Independence, allowing for the cultural difference.

I wrote:
        That we all have equal rights is not a maybe, unless
        you are a slave owner or any other of various sundry
        tyrants. That we all have equal rights IS the
        self-evident truth.

You chose to attack the concept of equal rights when you wrote:

        Does a murderer have the same rights as a doctor?
        Defining what rights we have is also an endless debate.

I presented a representative example of rights:

        Do you have a right to life?
        Do I have the right to kill you?

        Do you have a right to justly acquired, hold, use,
        enjoy, discard, or sell property according to your will?
        Do I have the right to take your property because I
        want it for myself or because I will use it to
        society's benefit?

You wrote:
        We could spend a year trying to define "justly".

I pasted the dictionary definition of "just"

No, Mr. Copcutt, I didn't miss your point.

You've agreed that you can NOT give a legislator a right to do something
that you don't have the right to do. In order to give the legislator the
right to take property (tax) you have to prove that you have the right
to take property. You can only do that if you can prove you actually
have a higher claim to my property than I do.

You have asserted that you have the right to take my property because
you will use it for the benefit of society.

You have asserted that you have a higher claim on MY property than I do.

You've asserted you have a higher claim of right on my actions than I
do. You've asserted that you have the right (authority) to command me.

In order for you to do that, our rights MUST NOT BE EQUAL.

Your point, Mr. Copcutt, is to avoid this truth.

Your sophistry continues:


Translation: It is just and fair for me to take your property, and
ignore your property rights. You are getting "dogmatic" about defending
the concept of your rights of property and liberty.

        dog·mat·ic adj. 1. Relating to, characteristic of, or
        resulting from dogma.

        dog·ma n. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or
        statement of ideas or opinion, especially one
        considered to be absolutely true.

QUOTE:
        The following is a rather shallow explanation but its a
        start
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_ (psychology)
        Thought forms are also mirrored. You see problems in
        others that you yourself have.

You have asserted that you have the right to take my property because
you will use it for the benefit of society. You have asserted that you
have a higher claim on MY property than I do. You've asserted you have a
higher claim of right on my actions than I do. You've asserted that you
have the right (authority) to command me. Who's being dogmatic?



Okay, don't put a time limit on it. How many times have you personally
experienced a situation in your life where your choice was violate
somebody's right to property or somebody was going to die?

Your argument attempts to justify the State's systematic use of
extortion, threat of violence, and if need be, actual violence to steal
property.

And once the state initiates violence, and you resist and continue to
resist the violence, the State WILL escalate and continue to escalate
the violence until "your life of x many years ends rather quickly."




Do you own your body?
Do you own your "self"?
Do you own Robert Copcutt?


Posted by YouDontOwnMe on September 27, 2009, 3:02 pm
 

I missed this the first time through.

Robert Copcutt wrote:

        sav·age·ry n. 1. The quality or condition of being
        savage. 2. An act of violent cruelty. 3. Savage
        behavior or nature; barbarity.


ALL laws are based upon the State saying "Do what we say or we will hurt
you." If you refuse to comply with the State's demands, the state WILL
initiate violence against you. If you resist, the state WILL escalate
the violence against you. If you continue to resist, the State WILL kill
you.

Ergo, the State relies upon savagery to extort compliance.

Posted by harry on August 10, 2009, 5:43 pm
 wrote:

The days of cheap electricty are numbered.

Posted by News on September 22, 2009, 8:46 pm
 




Cheap? It has always been expensive.


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread