i have an idea i want to get out there it will cure 2 problems gas prices are 2 high if we take all the oil in the country and have the new goverment that anons will create be run of the sale of oil only so no taxes ever the gov will be funded by the sale of oil alone set at 1.00 by the way so gas is cheap and u dont have to pay a tax ever i love the idea tell me what u think maybe im getting ahead of the game but i believe that anons will change the world
You want to do away with taxes? Here's some rock-solid advice: 1. Don't make any money. 2. Don't buy anything. 3. Don't own anything.
Let me take at stab at fixing the wording: I have an idea. We can fix two problems. Gas prices are too high. Let's create our own government (never mind how) and take all the oil and sell it, and use that to pay for government. This will do away with taxes and keep gas prices low. Uh, no, OP, just no. First, I wonder what the US government will be doing while you are busy creating a new government and nationalizing the oil. Then, of course, there's the matter of supply and demand. If the market price is 4.00 ($, I would presume) then pricing it at $1 will create shortages. That's basic Econ 101. So, why do you want to create shortages of oil? Could it be that OP is a faggot?
in texas and alaska theres enough oil to last over a thousand years so no shortage like the rewording thanks
Op you have a valid argument toward taxes, don't let anyone here bash your idea. One thing you need to understand is City, State and County Tax is needed to make communities work, Federal Tax on the other hand can be abolished. It is basically the reason why we left Britain in the first place and let's not forget that it is actually against the Constitution. The federal income tax is basically just a devil spawn created for the Internal Revenue Service to pay The Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank is an illegal corporation in it's own. The Federal Reserve is the only corporation in America not subject to taxes since it regulated by the Government. It is also against Constitutional Law to exist. As far as oil goes OPEC http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/ decides oil prices you have to fight them to change that and good luck. Companies such as Mobile an Exxon pretty much own the rights to sell oil to consumers and taking that right away from them would be very unconstitutional. As far as Anonymous creating a new government I haven't seen any evidence that this will ever happen. The thing is you are correct. in your angers, Oil/gas is way too high, We are taxed way too much according to constitutional law and there needs to be a change in government operations. The Federal Reserve, IRS, OPEC and Congress are your main problems. Congress creates laws from companies that fund their campaigns such as Exxon through lobbyists funded by groups such as ALEC http://www.alecexposed.org | http://www.sourcewatch.org. You need to cut the connection between lobbyists and politicians if you want oil prices to drop. Now if you want the Federal income tax to go away you need to abolish the Federal Reserve. The only way in doing this is voting in a President who would pass a bill to dismantle it. On top of that you need Congress to agree to it as well and they are all corporate sponsored. As far as an Anon built government, it's plausible but very unlikely. I'm trying to word this entire post without bashing your ideas, I hate it when people do that. As nice as it seems a government run and developed by anons is extremely far fetched and would be almost impossible to accomplish.On the positive side we can possibly come up with ideas to lower the tax and oil burden without destroying an entire government and replacing with with something that we have no idea if would be operable.
Oh goody, another inane ideas thread! USA? Cannot survive on its own resources. Why? 'Cause there's fuck all left. Bitch about it all you want, spend another couple of trillion on another war, let the killer cops take care of the dissenters, drive bigger cars, ftw!
How about we run OB1 for president. Really im not joking about that .There needs to be someone thats not invovled in the two party puppet system there is now .So why not? It will be the Anonymous political party! A party that actually cares about human rights for once.
in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[14] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002. However, some people believe that certain parties benefited from the price increase during the ban. Some even believe it was a form of Market manipulation on the part of certain drug lords. Dried opium, unlike most agricultural products, can easily be stored for long periods without refrigeration or other expensive equipment. With huge stashes of opium stored in secret hideaways. Taliban, and other groups became involved in the drug trade were in theory able to make huge personal profits during the price spikes after the 2000 ban and the chaos following 9/11. a war that was started because afganistan cut of americas heroin prodution there is up 800 precent since the us whet in and americas streets are flooded with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghanistan
"First Past The Pole" > you. Sorry. Also, governments will always suck. That's because they are organized coercion. The flaw causing governments to suck isn't anything anybody will ever come up with in attempting to fix what's wrong with them. The flaw is that when you go about organizing coercion in order to make others do what you want them to, you are overstepping your rights. If you don't have the right to go use force on your neighbor to make him do what you want him to (and you don't), where do you think the government you create/endorse as your agent could get such authority? It doesn't exist, it never did, and it never will, because it can't. So all these efforts at reform are just as doomed to fail as efforts to reform the institution of slavery were hundreds of years ago, and for essentially the same reason: inherent fundamental institutional illegitimacy. Think of it this way, if it helps: if you and I are talking, and you pick up a stick to hit me simply because you don't like what I said, then you just lost the game. Putting on airs -- such as calling yourself a fancy title or organizing an election to dilute your sin amongst the masses -- does nothing but fool the unthinking; the act is still wrong and your game is still lost, even if you silence anyone saying so. It's weird to contemplate, but the nearly ubiquitous dominance of the nation-state which we currently perceive as normal and permanent is actually malignant and doomed. It's just a matter of when, and of how much more suffering its adherents will cause before then in their misguided efforts at repairing the irreparable. Oh well. Have you tried the caek? It's delicious and moist.
This means a council republic is needed. The delegation of your will to state or nationwide representatives is useless without proper feedback loops. Either better loops in case you don't want to make decisions yourself or more decisions directly done by the people. Technically both would be possible in our days - instead of controlling the people, NSA could make governments totally transparent so we could vote upon observing decisions and linking them to our representatives. Would it be possible to have such a loopback system? Is there one already? It just has to show how "they" voted on important occasions and another part should represent facts about a certain topic and how people think about it.
I'm sorry, this is WWP, WhyWeProtest. The site you want is here: http://www.teaparty.org/ Good luck with that....
There's so much wrongness here I don't know where to begin. Let's start with the easy one and just quote the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Shit, Congress has the power to lay and collet taxes. Congress wrote a law saying "We're taking a portion of your income, it's a tax." So, that pretty much means it and all other federal taxes are EXPLICITLY Constitutional. Second point of contention I have with your statement, why we left Britain. We left because Britain wanted to pay for a war. A war to protect its own interests in the Americas (that's us, the colonies) from the French. Britain felt a war to protect the colonies should be paid for by the colonies. We felt differently, but we didn't have a say in the matter because we had no representation in the British Parliament. Thus, the phrase "No taxation without representation". We wanted to be treated like the full and proper British citizens that we thought we were, but instead King George was all "Jog on" and stuck his tongue out while giving the two-finger salute. Really, the whole thing could have been prevented by giving us some seats in the House of Commons, from whence taxes originate, so we could bicker with other MPs about taxes and be a part of the bureaucracy. But since that's not what happened and our repeated written and in-person requests for some kind of parley were turned down (plus a bunch of crazy nut jobs started destroying stuff in protest of the various taxes) we finally said "We're going to form our own country, thank you." Thus the American Revolutionary War. Really, only about 1/3 of the population was behind the Revolution. 1/3 were die hard Loyalists who felt that the Brits were in the right. The remaining 1/3 was undecided (as is so often the case) on how they felt. Finally, why we need Federal taxes. To pay for highways, to pay for border control, to pay for the military, to pay for clean water, to pay for clean food, to pay for clean air, and to basically support the infrastructure that allows us to be the most powerful nation on the planet. The founders tried a much weaker federal government, the kind you THINK we are supposed to have. It was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed which is why they had the Constitutional Conventions (which were, when you get down to it, a coup d'etat because they weren't supposed to create a whole new government but ended up doing it anyways), resulting in the Constitution and the much stronger federal system we have in place today. Unless of course you want to argue that we should entirely dismantle all federal agencies (including the DoD) and dissolve the Constitution, returning to a loose confederation of individual nation-states with no single unified currency, no single unified military, no single unified foreign voice, and absolutely no influence or power beyond our own borders. If you honestly think we should return to the 1781-1789 model of a loose confederation of states, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just try to remember that there are repercussions that go along with it. Namely the complete loss of power as we go from being one country to 50 countries in an EU-esque conglomerate.
What an excellent fucking idea! Lets start by completely nuking the economy by making a valuable commodity almost worthless! Never mind the fact everybody and their mother will use up the surplus in less than a month (and that is the most optimistic, unrealistic estimate) and all the jobs lost because oil refineries, suppliers and retailers can't afford to pay their staff... It's all for no taxes! Oh and lets frack like crazy! Who needs clean water and air? All those toxic chemicals that kill off the environment/people/both will be worth the small, insignificant return that get used up faster than it is created! Lets make moar oil rigs that spill into the ocean! Who needs a clean ocean and waters, anyways? Besides, there isn't enough oil in both fracking and in the ocean in and around the United Stupids of Retards to feed its insatiable appetite... Just ignore that pesky fact and make the whole ocean a big oil slick! Oh... How is anybody going to protect themselves from foreign/domestic threats? How is anybody going to get anywhere with roads slowly rotting away? How is anybody going to know if food is safe or if their workplace is safe? How is anybody going to know the medicine they take won't be worse/deadlier than the disease? How will people handle the eventual destruction of the environment and chaos when places to get Texas Tea dwindle or puke oil all over the land/ocean? With oil that you made worthless and not having enough of because people are too stupid to conserve it? Fuck out of here moonbat and take your fairy tail world view and equally retarded government with you!
tl;dr What constitution? It's been dead for over 200 years. Quoting it as legal authority shows your misunderstanding of what it is, namely, words on a paper. Your Logic: I say I can do it, I got my buddies to agree I can do it, therefore you must obey our rules, cause we all agree that you have to... So, I got all my buddies to agree that you owe us half your income. Please pay up immediately. Notice something...without guns, ie, without violence, your scheme doesn't work. You ain't gonna pay me any taxes without that gun pointed at your head, and I won't pay taxes without a gun pointed at mine,. Therefore, taxes are not legal, they are merely organized thuggery. it doesn't matter that 225 years ago a couple people agreed that theft was acceptable under certain circumstances. Theft is still theft no matter how many thugs you get to agree with you As for 'explicitly Constitutional' so was slavery yet you don't advocate for that. Nor do you mention that the same men who wrote and approved the Constitution were the very men who wrote and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were explicitly unconstitutional. In the early 1790s they pass the Bill of Rights, including that bit about free speech, then in the late 1790s those same men were jailing journalists for expressing an opinion that government didn't like.
Then there's the tiny matter that not all taxes are constitutional, but nobody cares about that any more. On to the totalitarianism... gotta have that clean air and water which unthreatened people hate so much!
Wow that's a lot of bad logic. I had to stop Netflix I was laughing so hard. Let's start from the beginning of how you are so VERY wrong. The Constitution, also known as the Supreme Law of the Land within the United States of America. We can have debates back and forth on the philosophical and theoretical effects of it, whether it is truly being applied in today's government, and need for reform or updates. But none of that changes the fact that it is the ultimate authority in what is or is not permissible. Calling it a piece of paper and thus has no meaning, you basically waive your entire argument on "constitutionality" ANYWAYS. So either it is just a piece of paper with words, in which case the entire argument about what is or is not constitutional is the ultimate in self-aggrandizement ego stroking, complete with circular logic, or it is the law of the land. In which case we have something that can tell us whether something is or is not constitutional. So really, in order for you to attack the federal income tax, Federal Reserve, or anything you object to, you have to first acknowledge that there is some rule system which says we aren't supposed to have it. That's called the Constitution. Again, we either have a rules system or we don't. If there is no rules system then yes, taxes are theft. But we have a rules system. It's called the US government. We agreed as a society that we would all play by a set of rules, we set down those rules in a document, we agreed to those rules, and we started running society by those rules. 225 years later we are still trying to play by those rules. You agree to play by those rules by virtue of living in this country. You have a number of options in what rules set you can play by. If you don't like the American rules, may I suggest you try moving somewhere that has a rules set more in line with what you like? The rules of America explicitly lay out that the people we appoint to update and make the rules can tax us to help pay for the system that runs the rules. Yes, there is a metaphorical gun to the head, but a rule without a penalty isn't a rule. It's a suggestion. It's not theft, it's the membership fee. No one is making you stay a member of the club that is the United States of America, but you can't be a member if you don't pay the membership fee. Members who are delinquent on paying their fees will be charged a fine or kicked out (also known as prison). It's like you've never been a member of a gym or subscribed to anything before. I'm not advocating for slavery because a bunch of people many years ago thought it was a bad rule and wanted it changed. It got changed. So when I open up my copy of the Constitution today, I see a BIG LINE right through all the stuff about owning people and a nice little bit of errata (we call them Amendments to sound fancy) about people can't be property anymore. To put it into other terms, hopefully one that you'll better understand, early editions of D&D have THAC0, but later editions got rid of it. They updated and changed the rules. Slavey is THAC0. We got rid of it from the rules. Hope that helps. I understand what you're trying to say. Some folks in the 1790s wrote the rule book then later tried to break the rules they wrote. The Sedition Act was found unconstitutional (because as you pointed out, it was against the rules) and overturned. What I fail to understand is how that has any relevancy to anything else. Because they passed a law that was unconstitutional, all the laws they passed must be unconstitutional? I lied to my parents when I was really little, does that mean everything I said at the time, or even since then, is a lie? I ran a stop sign once, does this mean every time I pass through an intersection I have failed to come to a complete stop. Because it happened once, it happened always? That's not how causality works. That's not how reality works. If it did, you were wrong (as I have just demonstrated) earlier, which means you are wrong ALWAYS and that makes my job here a LOT easier. You're not even the person I responded to initially, so it's more likely (and this is speculation) you're just some ideologue anarchist who wants to tear down all the systems because you read a couple books or websites and think you know everything but (this isn't speculation, just observation) your demonstrated lack of understanding of how society, logic, causality, and reality works tells me you fail to have any grasp on the greater picture or what the second and third order effects of your efforts would be any attempts you make to "improve things" would likely result (speculation again) in a total downfall of civilization and widespread catastrophe because (statement of personal opinion) you're an idiot.
This is true. Not every tax is constitutional. Poll taxes being an example. But the vast majority of them are.
I'm an ideologue anarchist, but not just that. I'm also a whiny grammar bitch and a shooper with minor talent. (Yes, I know you weren't addressing me. I'm just a surprise buttsecks bonus. Lucky you!) I used to have pretty much the same view you do. Then I started (at the prompting of some of those nasty books and the people who write them) thinking waitaminit, when did I actually agree to any of this? By being born here I agreed to something? By not moving later I agreed to something? Where is my agreement? Where's the contract? With whom was this contract made and when did I get the opportunity to consider it? Then I heard the statement that it's never legitimate to offer any good or service at the barrel of a gun. The more I thought about that, the more it occurred to me that that was the root of the problem. No matter how noble my (or anyone else's) intentions are, the moment I reach for a weapon to force you to go along with them, I sacrifice my operational legitimacy, because I violate your rights in coercing you. Yet, that is the core essence of the state. Dressing it up with fine talk changes nothing. Fighting wars and writing books changes nothing. Sending millions through propaganda mills (AKA schools) and telling them stuff changes nothing. Arguing with retarts on the net changes nothing. CNN changes nothing. Nothing except perceptions, that is. All of our lives we operate on perceptions; how accurate they are is the issue. Then I started thinking about how everyone who participates in politics and statecraft is trying to make rules for those nasty "other people" who (the participant sincerely believes) will behave "badly" if not coerced by the state, but will -- hopefully -- behave "properly" with the "right" coercion from the state. The participant, of course, is virtuous and wise and will behave correctly without coercion; the rules are for the "bad" people out there who need coercing, not our wise and virtuous participant. But those other people feel the same way in reverse! And so they all go on to duke it out forever, trying to fix society by getting that coercion "right" so that those "other people" behave themselves. But it never works; there's always plenty to bitch about and plenty of bums to (try to) throw out at the next election. If a company in a marketplace were run like a state, it would go out of business, because its bad decisions would sink it beneath better competition. States survive by forcefully preserving their monopoly, not by merit. Since there's only one per jurisdiction, there will always be infighting amongst the people about how to manage it. Imagine if we could all only share one restaurant, or one TV show, or one car, and we had to hold elections and vote on which one. (LOL!) Yet somehow there's a widespread belief that this concept can be made to work for an organized monopoly on coercion. Please justify that belief, o wise defender of the Constitution. And mind your "we" "we" talk. I don't even know ya (though I suspect, all rhetoric aside, that I wouldn't mind).
I do feel lucky! You actually talk sense. I doubt I'll be able to rebut you as successfully as I did the others, but I'll try. It's the social contract that we all implicitly agree to by remaining within a society. This is where it turns into a lot of philosophy and political theory that I will readily admit is a tad over my head, but as I understand it, it comes down to one of two things: there either are an implied set of rules for society or there isn't. In the entirety of human existence, nearly everyone on the planet in some way or fashion has come together and said "we're going to have a society, which means we need rules we all agree to for the collective good", and thus governments and societies have continued to pop up and rule and run things for good or for bad, but it keeps happening. That's what has gotten us here to where we are as a species today. We have a world where governments exist and thus the social contract exists. The instant you choose to not leave a society, you've agreed to the contract. Does this mean that growing up you've agreed to it without understanding? To an extent, yes, in that your guardians/parents have agreed to it on your behalf. You want out, there are a bevy of other options out there. There isn't the "one government" without competition, you have 193 UN member nation states to select from, as well as a few non-UN nation states, too. You certainly don't get those kinds of choices on the free market. This implies that rights are inviolable. They are not, they are nearly inviolable, but there are circumstances where violation of rights is justified. A person breaks the law, violating someone's right to private property, and a law enforcement official detains them, violating their right to personal freedom. They violated someone's right, which means their own rights become less sacrosanct in varying degrees. Obviously their own right to life is still quite valid as we've decided as a society you don't kill someone for stealing, but we have decided their right to personal property or even personal freedom can be curbed or infringed upon depending upon the severity of their own actions, through fines or jail time. You cannot have an ordered, structured society without rules. Rules have no meaning without enforcement. Enforcement requires a penalty. If we had a society where everyone agreed 100% of the time to follow the rules of the social contract then I agree that there'd never EVER be a reason to use coercion or force against an individual. But we don't have that and people do things that are wrong, hurtful, destructive, and counter to the betterment of society. So we try to make rules to determine what is and is not permissible. The only alternative is a world where people cannot envision the idea of anything BUT doing what is socially agreed upon as proper behavior and you're not going to achieve that. Taking AWAY the structure of society is not going to contribute to that, either. You're a participant in politics simply because you exist. You want things, you need things, you want to do things. Other people do, too and some are going to want the things you want and need the things you need and want to do things that run contrary to what you want to do or don't want done. Politics is the means by how which we try to resolve those differences. I say try because there's no guarantee. Maybe you're going to really want that thing I also want. I mean REALLY want it. Want it so bad you're going to do anything you can to have it. This thing may not even be an actual tangible thing, but could be an action or an agreement or anything. And that's when we have the final resort of politics, violence. But most of the time we're not going to have violence and we're just going to argue. Yes, I think there are people out there who will behave badly if there's not a rule in place to stop them. There's also people who will behave badly even if there IS a rule in place to stop them. And there's people out there who think the same thing of me. And they're right. Holy shit are they right. I'm a horrible horrible person who has behaved abominably by violating quite a few rules. I didn't observe the Sabbath this week, or the week before. Also, I had sex before marriage. I've eaten pork. I've worn clothing of mixed materials. I've done a lot of things that a lot of people would like to have passed rules for, but the social contract I'm in doesn't have those rules. Which I'm really thankful for, some of that pre-marital sex would totally have not been worth the public stoning. But that's the deal, that we've all tried to come together and make it work using a rules system that we agree to follow as long as we're a part of that society. And yes, it's a never ending cycle of bullshit and problems and trying to make things better and failing a vast majority of the time but it is slowly getting better. I'm sorry if it's not getting better fast enough for you but in the grand scheme of things I think we're doing okay considering we've managed to go from human sacrifices to the gods as a matter of state policy to gay marriage in under 1000 years. Give humanity another 1000 and lets see what it accomplishes. Not only do you have 193 different countries to choose from, each with their own variations of approach on how people should be allowed to live, but in at least the majority of those countries you have competing views on the specifics and details. And if you get enough people in most of those countries to agree they don't like the overall approach, you can start over with a new one. And why is there a widespread belief that this concept can be made to work? Because it works. The alternative, no system, is generally regarded as unfeasible. Why? Because it is. We tried anarchy, a system where there is no leader, in fact that is how we started. A species with no rulers and no coercion and none of that stuff you talk about. And then we tried having not anarchy. We started small with tribes, and some of those tribes became cities, and some rose to the power of nations. We kept doing the "not anarchy" thing and still do to this day. We've changed the methods over and over and are still hammering out the kinks, but humanity keeps choosing it. I'd love to let you have your minimal participation in society, to be as free as you want and as uninvolved in society as possible. But you ARE involved in society and that means you have to pay your membership dues and follow the rules. Is it tyranny of me to ask that? I don't think it is, I think it's just fair. You don't want to pay income tax then don't have an income. Barter for food, shelter, etc. If you can provide a workable alternative, and sell it to the people, then fantastic. I wish you the best.
If that's directed at me, I don't even care because it's Nathan Fillion. Even when he's disappointed you can see in his eyes that he still loves you.
wow so i check out the teaparty site and they have one of anonymous videos on it hunt it down there talking S**T
well so much for the idea back to the drawing board. i have watched the u.s.a. go straight to hell since sept 11th 2001 and its just getting worse and maybe it needs to maybe than when it cant be fixed people will rise up and stick together till than i can only hope so tonight im going to sit at home and make little scientology and obama vodoo dolls and put my mask on and laugh and laugh and poke pins and laugh some more oooha ha
Thanks! I almost upvoted your post strictly out of appreciation for following good form, but I decided to be an asshat and sit on my voting finger instead. Still, good post. I think I'll opt to leave it mostly alone (since arguments on the Internet are automatically fail anyway) and just say that, generally, I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree that a coercion monopoly is the only or best way to have order. I actually do think the market can provide what is needed even on those thorny items like defense, roads, etc. which are usually the staple of the statist side of the debate -- and I think that's where we're eventually headed. However, that's an involved discussion and this is a cage of doo-flinging monkeys, so... back to our regularly scheduled hijinks (at least for me). I do like the cut of your jib, though. For a wrong-headed person, you're alright.
@anonsoldier on another thread I explained how, at the age of 19, when it was a crime for me to vote, I was subject to a draft. The reason I bring this up is to point out the fail of a social contract. The government made it a crime for me to express my preferences, and then kidnapped me to turn me into a murderer...and you say this is OK because of the social contract, which I was explicitly excluded from. I also explained that the government you are defending does not believe in the social contract either. Think Iran 1953. If our government believed in the social contract, it would never overthrow an elected government. And you ignore the Founding Fucking Fathers who shredded the Constitutions less than a decade after enacting it. Also, the only way the social contract makes any sense is if you ignore the normal meaning of the word 'contract.' And finally, I just read this today http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
No taxes equals no funding of the US government and while that might might be a relatively good thing or bad thing thing it is probably safe to say that non funding of the US government is a grey area because non funding is generally considered a bad thing on a social media site and you may get exposed to trolls and trolls are generally bad and it is a waste of time to debate trolls because trolls don't actually debate since intelligent debating was actually disproved by Einstein and no one can debate Albert because he is dead and therefore debate is dead and therefore your argument is INVALID and you lose. /r/ JohnnyRUClear to provide proper punctuation. Because grammar trumps tin foil. Prove me wrong.
Yes, that would be why there was such a strong movement to have the voting age lowered to 18, to tie it to the age of eligibility for selective service. You're also twisting my words. I never explicitly stated that particular situation of yours was "OK". I personally feel that if you're old enough to die for your country you should be old enough to vote in your country. I briefly read over your situation and I also know that you have the right to register as a Conscientious Objector. It was mentioned in that other thread and I saw no further follow-up comment by you on the issue. Were you eligible/ineligible for Conscientious Objector status at the time of your draft? If you weren't then I think it's a tragedy and I'm very glad we've been able to make progress, as instances like your own were the driving factor behind an all-volunteer force. Our government does believe in the social contract. Between us Americans. We have a social contract between us and other countries, the rules of international warfare and the traditions and customs of international diplomacy, but thats a different contract than the one we have within our country. In the end we are going to do right by us, as our elected leaders perceive it to be, when it comes to other countries. We're going to overthrow elected governments and people are going to try to overthrow our elected government. Everyone is going to try and act in their own best interest, that's called human nature. Do I think we should be meddling in other countries? Yes, just like I'd expect them to try and meddle in our affairs. That's politics. It's the degree to which we should or should not be meddling that is up for discussion. I already discussed this. They passed a law that was unconstitutional, which was found to be unconstitutional, and was nullified. The system works. Does it make a difference whether it happened today or in the 1790s? I should be astonished or amazed that the people who wrote the supreme law of the land turned out to be flawed individuals just like everyone else on this planet? Does that somehow discredit the law of the land? If Elizabeth Magie or Charles Darrow (the people credited on Wikipedia as the two designers of the game Monopoly) tries to cheat at a game of Monopoly and gets caught, does that mean no one is ever allowed to play Monopoly again? Does it mean we have to come up with a whole new rules system to play the game? Try making an argument about how this is relevant. That it happened is not itself relevant. I'm sorry that it's not a perfect system. I'm open to alternative suggestions that don't require the complete dismantling of civilization as we know it. I like my running water, electricity, and paved roads. Yes, that's because even if you aren't a US citizen but receive income from a US source, you owe income tax. And if you were already told to report for selective service under a draft, renouncing your citizenship doesn't relieve you of the obligation to report for service as that was imposed prior to the renunciation. If you've renounced your citizenship, you can notify the Selective Service of that action and have yourself removed.
In point of fact, I was subjected to kidnapping, THer is no way that you can justify that. NONE. Again, the CO status would have had me in jail. Again, you ignore that no one has the right to kidnap me. NO ONE. First, no they don’t believe in the social contract for the reasons I’ve already given, The first example was in 1798 against Amercans, so you fail in the history. Second, we don’t NEED a social contract if we have a written constitution, The two concepts are at odds to each other. The draft is unconstitutional. Just because 9 men once said otherwise is irrelevant, No one can agree that crimes are legal. SCOTUS is not the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. Your last statement tells me you don’t know much about history. Roads are built by people, not governments, and if you don’t know that the USG didn’t really take over the road system until it had been built by private enterpirse then I suggest reading some history. Start with the first major road in the US, built by private enterprise because the government couldn't afford it. IOW, if I don’t want to be kidnapped… Why do you always wait until after a crime has been committed against me before giving me options? Why do I not get to vote on whether I want to be kidnapped or not? A constitutional republic, which was what the US started as, states explicitly that the Federal government has enumerated powers, and no more. Our federal government has ignored that principle, hence the contract is null and void, as any contract violated by one party would be.
https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/obama-care.114342/page-3 At the risk of sounding redundant: You have a habit of using negatively charged terms that are similar but not identical to the circumstances at hand. Let me outline some differences in the circumstances of draftees vs. typical kidnapping victims. Those drafted to serve do so for national defense or some other national interest. Those drafted to serve have the option of CO status. Those drafted to serve have some option as to the type of service they'd like to perform. Those drafted to serve are given room, board, compensation, training, and benefits. In a phrase, it is enforced national service at a reasonable exchange. It is not kidnapping. These extra circumstances, which you fail to note, and which serve national defense or some other national interest, do justify this enforced national service at reasonable exchange. Later on in that thread, you conceded that the term "kidnapping" was inappropriate. Here you are again, using this negatively charged term when you already conceded that it was inappropriate in earlier debate. You know what I call that? Faggotry.
You assume that the war was just, It wasn't. You assume that some men have the right to force other men to commit crimes. They don't. You are assuming that because some men call it 'The Draft" that means it's is not kidnapping. But it is kidnapping. There was no national security interests in Vietnam, there was no danger to the republic, there was just "The Best and the Brightest" ordering 19 year olds to murder 1.1M people. So, I call that a travesty, pure fucking evil. You call it 'the draft' whatever
Boo--Fucking-Hoo. YOU WERE NOT KIDNAPPED YOU WORTHLESS, PATHETIC FAGGOT. YOU WERE DRAFTED AND THIS CALLING IT "KIDNAPPING" IS JUST YOUR WORTHLESS, PATHETIC POINT-OF-FAGGOTRY-VIEW. Deal with it, faggot.Your opinion is like your asshole: Full of cum and just as worthless. Also: LOLing at your bullshit. You just mad that you had to go to 'Nam instead of sucking cocks here in the USA. Guess all the ones that died, both past and future, died so you could be a cum bucket? Couldn't get enough Asian Cock? Fuck off. What really makes me LOL hard is you think the world is not dangerous at all. GROW UP. This world is full of dangerous shit and people that'd kill you on sight than look at you. No governmental changes or any bullshit you come up with will change that cold, hard fact. People WILL kill you because of the most bullshit reasons. To say removing a government that wronged just you is not just retarded, it will change nothing. Oh, you can be a fairy and try to change them... but you will be dead long before you know what hit you. Do you really think they'll listen to you or this idea? If you believe that, you are the king of retards. Now: You can always get the fuck out if you don't like it. Otherwise shut the fuck up faggot and deal with it. There is no third option no matter how much bullshit you speak or think. STFU or GTFO. Nobody cares you went to 'Nam or the war itself. That is old shit that nobody except faggots like you care about anymore.
I'm not going to address the kidnapping term. paulrevere already addressed that. You're trying to use non-comparative, emotionally charged terminology to evoke a pathos argument. It's flawed. Stop it. Also, CO status would not have put you in jail. Failure to receive CO status would have presented you the option of jail or enlistment. Actually receiving CO status would have exempted you from military service and placed you into stateside alternative service. Because on one instance some of the founders passed an unconstitutional law, clearly they don't believe in a social contract? You're delusional and fail at logic. I apologize SO MUCH that people are flawed and not perfect, but you're a fucking idiot. They literally ARE the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. That is their job, purpose, the reason for their existence. You're an idiot. That explains why the massive highway system we have in place was built under the direction of President Eisenhower. Go read some history yourself about how the MODERN highway network was developed to supplement the logistical supply effort of WW2 and during the Cold War. If you don't want to be in a country that has selective service, go to a country that doesn't have selective service. Many Americans figured this out and moved to Canada. You never tried to file for Conscientious Objector status, never went to college in order to seek a deferment, and never exercised the option to leave the country and revoke your citizenship status prior to your number being picked in the draft. I have sympathy for you that you couldn't vote and were drafted, but you had options and chose not to exercise them so I don't have a LOT of sympathy. You've demonstrated such clear conviction on opposition to war in any form which is a primary requirement for CO status and yet you never applied. So shut the fuck up, it's whining at this point. Wrong, violation of a contract doesn't automatically nullify the contract. It entitles the wronged party to compensation, which may include nullification of the contract. The enumerated powers you refer to are defined in broad terms, specifically because the founders were at least clever enough to realize that things were likely to change and the government had to have enough leeway and flexibility to go where the people of that time saw fit. It's quite clear you feel incredibly wronged and have a massive chip on your shoulder towards the US government, any agent of the US government, and anyone who casts the US government in a favorable light. You can fuck off now.
