6 ms·

Who should investigate this? The same government guys? Will you trust this investigation? Private investigators? Will multi-layered bureaucracy let any outside

Who should investigate this? The same government guys? Will you trust this investigation? Private investigators? Will multi-layered bureaucracy let any outsider to just go in and look into papers? Or you suggest going to congress and mr. president to ask permission to let you investigate? (Basically, asking the same gov. guys you never trust.) Here's suggestion: I don't want to play this game. Let NSA do whatever they want to do, but I don't want to pay for this. Let me not pay my taxes and use different currency, so they cannot tax me by inflating it. Then we'll see if they'll have enough funds to continue doing what they are up to. The real fix is total removal of any moral justification for the government. Give voluntarily to those who deserve it (in your view) and expose violence when they try to extract money from you by force (explicitly via taxation or implicitly via inflation). When people see the "gun in the room", they'll be more informed about how shit like NSA happens to them and how to actually prevent it. However, if you in favor of some government policy, I respect you decision and will never violently prevent you from sponsoring it. But will you give me the same respect if I disagree with you and not violently prevent me from withdrawing my participation? In other words, will you blame or at least not justify a violent action against me if I decide to not pay for some government programs I dislike?

rayiner 13y ago
You're welcome to withdraw from our social compact, but in doing so you can't be allowed to stay on U.S. soil because as a practical matter we can't help but defend you from invasion if you do. I'm sure there are lots of other countries that would love to have you, though.
- oleganza 13y ago
  So you can point out legitimate owners of the soil? Was there a contract among some folks? Maybe you have some theory of property rights. I'd be very interested to hear it and see how consistent it is. Btw, slavery once was legal too. It must be covered by your theory of justice.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Nobody "owns" the soil, not really. "Ownership" is a fiction--nothing more than an implied agreement between you and a big enough group of other people that if someone tries to displace you from a particular patch of soil, the group will forcibly remove that person. The U.S. governments (the federal and states) don't "own" the soil within the borders of the U.S., but have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce ownership agreements on U.S. soil for no greater or lesser reason other than the fact that they can defend those borders against outsiders. It is interesting that you mention slavery. No amount of bleeting about "natural rights" will keep armed people from enslaving you, as has happened countless times throughout history. Your "right" to freedom is nothing more or less than your agreement with a sufficiently large group of other people that they will defend you against people trying to enslave you. The history of slavery in the U.S. actually exemplifies this. The 13th amendment didn't end slavery. Constitutional recognition of peoples' inherent right to freedom didn't end slavery. Union soldiers burning down southern cities ended slavery.
    - oleganza 13y ago
      See my comment below. I don't advocate any definition of "ownership". Call it however you want. It is you, not me who is using those concepts when you tell me that some group of people have some sort of agreement by which I must pay taxes, use certain paper bills as a legal tender etc. I am only saying that if I don't hurt anyone and do not want to participate in certain activities, what is the justification for violent action against me? So please explain what you meant by your original comment.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        The justification is that you are on soil that was staked out and is defended by those other people. You're welcome to leave, but you're not welcome to stay without abiding by the rules of the group. You are advocating a particular definition of ownership: ownership that gives you the right to occupy soil independent of any compact with some other group of people.
  - dctoedt 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

You're welcome to withdraw from our social compact, but in doing so you can't be allowed to stay on U.S. soil because as a practical matter we can't help but defend you from invasion if you do. I'm sure there are lots of other countries that would love to have you, though.

oleganza 13y ago
So you can point out legitimate owners of the soil? Was there a contract among some folks? Maybe you have some theory of property rights. I'd be very interested to hear it and see how consistent it is. Btw, slavery once was legal too. It must be covered by your theory of justice.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Nobody "owns" the soil, not really. "Ownership" is a fiction--nothing more than an implied agreement between you and a big enough group of other people that if someone tries to displace you from a particular patch of soil, the group will forcibly remove that person. The U.S. governments (the federal and states) don't "own" the soil within the borders of the U.S., but have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce ownership agreements on U.S. soil for no greater or lesser reason other than the fact that they can defend those borders against outsiders. It is interesting that you mention slavery. No amount of bleeting about "natural rights" will keep armed people from enslaving you, as has happened countless times throughout history. Your "right" to freedom is nothing more or less than your agreement with a sufficiently large group of other people that they will defend you against people trying to enslave you. The history of slavery in the U.S. actually exemplifies this. The 13th amendment didn't end slavery. Constitutional recognition of peoples' inherent right to freedom didn't end slavery. Union soldiers burning down southern cities ended slavery.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    See my comment below. I don't advocate any definition of "ownership". Call it however you want. It is you, not me who is using those concepts when you tell me that some group of people have some sort of agreement by which I must pay taxes, use certain paper bills as a legal tender etc. I am only saying that if I don't hurt anyone and do not want to participate in certain activities, what is the justification for violent action against me? So please explain what you meant by your original comment.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The justification is that you are on soil that was staked out and is defended by those other people. You're welcome to leave, but you're not welcome to stay without abiding by the rules of the group. You are advocating a particular definition of ownership: ownership that gives you the right to occupy soil independent of any compact with some other group of people.
- dctoedt 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]