Thought crimes?

[cannabineer]

your statement is an excellent summation of my personal philosophy. unfortunately robby will take this as concession to the dubious wisdom of lysander spooner, and conclude that he was right about all of his wacky numbskull anarcho-starvationalist beliefs. next stop, somalia.

choosing to NOT be the guy who shakes down other kids for their lunchmoney does not mean i wish to indulge in all the other idiotic claims of the spoonerites, or embrace robby's insane claim that all of society should be consensual and transactional, and every person should opt in or out of every policy or tax he doesnt believe in. thats stupid in the extreme. i aint got no kids, so i should get arefund for every dollar i paid that went t the schools, i aint never been in jail, so want my prison monies back, no cop ever did anything for me but give me tickets, i want all my cop money back. my house never burt down, i want my fire department money back. i aint never started no war s i want my military money back...

so all told the government owes me EVERY DIME of income and payroll tax i ever paid, and about 3/4 of my excise and stamp taxes back too.

ill expect my check for pretty close to 1.8 million dollars by next week.

Oh I see. No; I can't make Spoonerism (?) work for me either. It's a sort of defanged communism with its insistence on a sort of consensual/transactional agora.
But the basic principle of not starting a fight is a good one. i supported our involvement in the first Gulf War as part of a true coalition, and I was pleased to see the counteroffensive ended once the declared goal was achieved. The later involvements ... no. cn

 

[ChesusRice]

Oh I see. No; I can't make Spoonerism (?) work for me either. It's a sort of defanged communism with its insistence on a sort of consensual/transactional agora.
But the basic principle of not starting a fight is a good one. i supported our involvement in the first Gulf War as part of a true coalition, and I was pleased to see the counteroffensive ended once the declared goal was achieved. The later involvements ... no. cn

The first Gulf war was just as much a fraud as the second
Hussein asked us for permission to invade Kuwait
And we gave it to him
at the very least when he told us his plans
We said we didnt care

 

[cannabineer]

The first Gulf war was just as much a fraud as the second
Hussein asked us for permission to invade Kuwait
And we gave it to him
at the very least when he told us his plans
We said we didnt care

This post contains two contradictory claims. cn

 

[ChesusRice]

This post contains two contradictory claims. cn

At least two transcripts of the meeting have been published. The State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of these transcripts, but Glaspie's cable has been released at the Bush Library and placed online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.
One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:

“

We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

”

Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:

“

We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America

 

[Rob Roy]

since we are going to reductio the shit out of this here absurdum, then i shall characterize your views as they appear to me:

in your view, there can be no law, no tax no policy, no organization, and in fact no country save that EVERY PERSON agree specifically with EVERY SINGLE LINE ITEM OF EVERY POLICY AND TAX or it is all invalid, illegal and offensive t your delicate anarcho-sensibilities.

thats silly. it's Anarcho-Retarded if you find living within the constraints of a society so distasteful then move to the wilderness like Ted Khazinski, and unabomber the fuck out of yourself.

I do not gently stroke the worn pages of a tattered copy of Walden and jerk off, nor do i indulge in the fantasy of a marxist paradise were all men are equal free an inexplicably prosperous despite the lack of any infrastructure, regulation or restriction on any activity of any description, including agriculture, industry, mercantilism and banditry, though it seems you consider them all to be identical in their wickedness and evil.

a farmer's son does not elect to be born on a farm, and in fact children have no consent at all in their creation, so when an angsty teen slashes his emo wrists he is naturally "Opting out" of his non-consensual presence on this mortal coil. likewise, the proximity of wilderness areas where you could wander off and become a freaky hermit living in a cave and wearing the skins of coyotes indicates you have "opted in" for living in society. nobody s forcing you to stay, the yukon territories are right there waiting, or if you prefer a faster method of travel to your anarcho-utopean wonderland, all you need is deep water, a heavy stone and a short rope.

I'll address the first part of your post, because it's a bit more coherent and relevant than the last part.

You seem to have shifted your argument in the face of my logical onslaught. Further you've somewhat made my point for me and somewhat contradicted yourself about whether "consent" exists. In earlier posts you said the Constitution provides consent and implied it covers everybody in a given locale. By your most recent post you at least are no longer arguing that true consent exists and it could be inferred that you don't think it is necessary to get a person's consent to subject them to laws, taxation etc.

Is the Constitution a "contract" ? If it is aren't parties to valid contracts suppose to assent voluntarily ?

I'll give you comedic points for the jerking off references to Walden and how did you know I wear Coyote skins ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Hey you have to retract that last paragraph

He may be unstable enough to take you up on it

And you dont want to be responsible in any way for that

Thank you for your concern, I'll try to maintain my stability in the face of the overwhelming intellectual beating you provide. Please give my regards to the latex wife. (kudos to NoDrama)

 

[Dr Kynes]

I'll address the first part of your post, because it's a bit more coherent and relevant than the last part.

You seem to have shifted your argument in the face of my logical onslaught. Further you've somewhat made my point for me and somewhat contradicted yourself about whether "consent" exists. In earlier posts you said the Constitution provides consent and implied it covers everybody in a given locale. By your most recent post you at least are no longer arguing that true consent exists and it could be inferred that you don't think it is necessary to get a person's consent to subject them to laws, taxation etc.

Is the Constitution a "contract" ? If it is aren't parties to valid contracts suppose to assent voluntarily ?

I'll give you comedic points for the jerking off references to Walden and how did you know I wear Coyote skins ?

under your conditions of consent from all involved persons one could not run a small household, much less a village. i dont even agree with my close family members on every topic and never have. if somebody does not give a little (submit in your terms) then we would be a group of acrimonious strangers who meet occasionally at weddings and funerals.

your "philosophy" of consent on every issue, transactional arrangements for every concession, and insistence on mutual agreement of every party before any action may be taken is a recipe for the dissolution of all society, and a reversion to primitiveism

you reject all sense of duty, all dedication to something bigger than oneself, and all hope for one's offspring. your plots plans and fantasies are the worst sort of dreary doggerel.

in a world operated under your stated aims there would be no bridges, roads, buildings or in fact any object that takes more than one person to construct from raw materials to finished product, as there can be no co-operation without absolute agreement on every part of the plan, and no plan itself since very few children would "consent" to go to school, but no schools either since nobody could agree on who gets to be in charge and what would be taught.

you just re-invented the stone age. nice work bro.

the constitution is not a contract, it is a binding agreement of sovereignty and rights, like the magna carta, or te code of hammurabi. it creates and establishes the rights and responsibiklities of the government and the governed, ours is unique in history because you can opt out, unlike being a subject of the crowns of europe, or a member of the catholic flock. at any time an american cna choose to dissolve his participation in america and go off to some primitive wildland and live as a savage in the manner and place of his choosing. you could go to the jungles of brazil, the wilds of alaska, or even detroit.

what you cannot do is accept te benefits of society without participating in the restrictions of society. if you want to live in the yukon with 10 wives and mate with your own daughters while drinking the urine of wild bison, you ca do that, but in society your actions might be frowned upon

 

[Rob Roy]

under your conditions of consent from all involved persons one could not run a small household, much less a village. i dont even agree with my close family members on every topic and never have. if somebody does not give a little (submit in your terms) then we would be a group of acrimonious strangers who meet occasionally at weddings and funerals.

your "philosophy" of consent on every issue, transactional arrangements for every concession, and insistence on mutual agreement of every party before any action may be taken is a recipe for the dissolution of all society, and a reversion to primitiveism

you reject all sense of duty, all dedication to something bigger than oneself, and all hope for one's offspring. your plots plans and fantasies are the worst sort of dreary doggerel.

in a world operated under your stated aims there would be no bridges, roads, buildings or in fact any object that takes more than one person to construct from raw materials to finished product, as there can be no co-operation without absolute agreement on every part of the plan, and no plan itself since very few children would "consent" to go to school, but no schools either since nobody could agree on who gets to be in charge and what would be taught.

you just re-invented the stone age. nice work bro.

the constitution is not a contract, it is a binding agreement of sovereignty and rights, like the magna carta, or te code of hammurabi. it creates and establishes the rights and responsibiklities of the government and the governed, ours is unique in history because you can opt out, unlike being a subject of the crowns of europe, or a member of the catholic flock. at any time an american cna choose to dissolve his participation in america and go off to some primitive wildland and live as a savage in the manner and place of his choosing. you could go to the jungles of brazil, the wilds of alaska, or even detroit.

what you cannot do is accept te benefits of society without participating in the restrictions of society. if you want to live in the yukon with 10 wives and mate with your own daughters while drinking the urine of wild bison, you ca do that, but in society your actions might be frowned upon

Extra points for calling the North American beasts "bison", rather than buffalo. I'm afraid the rest of your paper gets a failing grade though....

So first let's define consent. Are your still saying another person can give consent for somebody ?

As far as your run on diversion and commentary. Cute, but maybe not valid. You mischaracterize my words and regurgitate them back with different meaning to effect your argument.

I'm talking about the meaning of consent you seem to be talking about why it's okay to deny consent and still call it consent. Two different things there, no?

As far as the other points you've made, I'll see if I can address them intelligently and expose why they may not be accurate.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Extra points for calling the North American beasts "bison", rather than buffalo. I'm afraid the rest of your paper gets a failing grade though....

So first let's define consent. Are your still saying another person can give consent for somebody ?

As far as your run on diversion and commentary. Cute, but maybe not valid. You mischaracterize my words and regurgitate them back with different meaning to effect your argument.

I'm talking about the meaning of consent you seem to be talking about why it's okay to deny consent and still call it consent. Two different things there, no?

As far as the other points you've made, I'll see if I can address them intelligently and expose why they may not be accurate.

in many cases, consent to a rule law tax or obligation is irrelevant.

examples;

the draft:
the amish do not consent to the draft and instead serve in a non-military capacity

cassius clay (muhammed ali) declined to consent to the draft, and instead served time in prison for his non-compliance

bill clinton declined the draft, by engaging in subversion of the process to extricate himself from the hazard of military service

which of these examples are spoonerish?

laws prohibiting drinking and driving:
william shoemaker enjoyed drinking and enjoyed driving, especially while racing at the Bacardi Oak Tree Invitational (won by a nose) and thus spent the rest of his life consenting to crapping in a bag and rolling about in a wheelchair.

ted kenedy enjoyed drinking, and enjoyed driving. he declined to consent to the rule of law and mary jo kopeckne wound up dead.

linsay lohan enjoys drinking and enjoys driving, and declines to consent to laws prohibiting the synergization of these disparate ativities, and as a result spends most of her time between shitty films in a county jail.

arnold schwarzenegger enjoys drinking and enjoys driving, but chooses to not enjoy the two together, and thus found the time to consent to be the best governor caifornia has seen since reagan.

need i continue?

laws governing society do not require your consent to be binding. they are part of the society, which you may consent to leave if you desire, or you will be joining another society, where your consent to sexual encounters in a tiled shower room are also irrelevant. or you could get shanked in the laundry and spent your bid in the infirmary getting fed trough a tube. either way your consent is not required.

 

[Red1966]

"When we want your opinion, we will tell you what it is."

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Dr. Kynes,

Without government, we'd have a cheaper and faster Spooner's postal service. You seem to think Spooner was a failed business man. No, he was the victim of a collectivist Robin Hood thievery government. He didn't fail, government failed us all.

 

[Dr Kynes]

spooner was a failed businessman. no clever businessman sinks his investment into a company that plans to compete with the US postal service where it was still a model of efficiency. several private companies engaged in services which competed with the postal service in areas where the postal service sucked, such as the pony express, and wells fargo in the west. if you wanted shit to get to it's destination west of the mississippi you hired these guys to deliver it, not the postal service. in new england, the postal service had that shit on lock. you dont open a high tone restaurant next door to the four seasons, and you sure as shit dont start up a car dealership across the street from Cal Worthington.

spooner's fanboys have painted him as some sort f noble self sacrificing hero oppressed by the powers of authoritarian government, but he was a wanker, a fake lawyer and a shitty entrepreneur. maybe in 100 years donald trump will also be a hero to the same sort of dingbats.

 

[Rob Roy]

in many cases, consent to a rule law tax or obligation is irrelevant.

examples;

the draft:
the amish do not consent to the draft and instead serve in a non-military capacity

cassius clay (muhammed ali) declined to consent to the draft, and instead served time in prison for his non-compliance

bill clinton declined the draft, by engaging in subversion of the process to extricate himself from the hazard of military service

which of these examples are spoonerish?

laws prohibiting drinking and driving:
william shoemaker enjoyed drinking and enjoyed driving, especially while racing at the Bacardi Oak Tree Invitational (won by a nose) and thus spent the rest of his life consenting to crapping in a bag and rolling about in a wheelchair.

ted kenedy enjoyed drinking, and enjoyed driving. he declined to consent to the rule of law and mary jo kopeckne wound up dead.

linsay lohan enjoys drinking and enjoys driving, and declines to consent to laws prohibiting the synergization of these disparate ativities, and as a result spends most of her time between shitty films in a county jail.

arnold schwarzenegger enjoys drinking and enjoys driving, but chooses to not enjoy the two together, and thus found the time to consent to be the best governor caifornia has seen since reagan.

need i continue?

laws governing society do not require your consent to be binding. they are part of the society, which you may consent to leave if you desire, or you will be joining another society, where your consent to sexual encounters in a tiled shower room are also irrelevant. or you could get shanked in the laundry and spent your bid in the infirmary getting fed trough a tube. either way your consent is not required.

So back to consent....and laws that can bind a person absent their consent. If others can bind me or you to certain behaviors that they deem appropriate or inappropriate based on their whims or beliefs, that seems counter to a "free society" doesn't it? It appears you are saying that to be part of a "society" one must submit to the stupid laws as well as the ones that actually seek to restitute a real victim? Doesn't it seem stupid to follow laws that have no basis in actually protecting a victim or providing restitution? Doesn't it seem foolish to follow laws that rest on arbitrary rule designed to protect financial interests of a class of privileged people? Why would you want to do that and is that the "society" you seek to belong to? Wouldn't it be better if laws were not based in mala prohibitum instead based in an enforcement of the non aggression principle and preventing actual crime to real people?

...i never got shanked in jail either, but I've seen plenty of people get sent to jail because "society" sent them there for "non crimes" . How come your constitution didn't leap up and save them ? i thought this piece of paper was the end all, be all....what gives ?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Then why didn't government wait for Spooner to fail on his own rather than legislate him into failure? Big Daddy government was scared of something, why wasn't it laughing like you? It knew Spooner was going to do, so it only let the business form so it would have excuse to make more rules which now don't exist?

 

[Dr Kynes]

So back to consent....and laws that can bind a person absent their consent. If others can bind me or you to certain behaviors that they deem appropriate or inappropriate based on their whims or beliefs, that seems counter to a "free society" doesn't it? It appears you are saying that to be part of a "society" one must submit to the stupid laws as well as the ones that actually seek to restitute a real victim? Doesn't it seem stupid to follow laws that have no basis in actually protecting a victim or providing restitution? Doesn't it seem foolish to follow laws that rest on arbitrary rule designed to protect financial interests of a class of privileged people? Why would you want to do that and is that the "society" you seek to belong to? Wouldn't it be better if laws were not based in mala prohibitum instead based in an enforcement of the non aggression principle and preventing actual crime to real people?

...i never got shanked in jail either, but I've seen plenty of people get sent to jail because "society" sent them there for "non crimes" . How come your constitution didn't leap up and save them ? i thought this piece of paper was the end all, be all....what gives ?

i cannot engage in debate when you constantly fall back on the straw man of "consent" to deny the power of society to enact laws. no organization created by people can ever be perfect. demanding perfection is the fools prerogative though, so go ahead and break every law you feel is unjust, and then insist that you never consented to that law, i wish you the best in prison. im sure spooner will come back from the grave and "consent" to be your fake lawyer.

 

[Rob Roy]

spooner was a failed businessman. no clever businessman sinks his investment into a company that plans to compete with the US postal service where it was still a model of efficiency. several private companies engaged in services which competed with the postal service in areas where the postal service sucked, such as the pony express, and wells fargo in the west. if you wanted shit to get to it's destination west of the mississippi you hired these guys to deliver it, not the postal service. in new england, the postal service had that shit on lock. you dont open a high tone restaurant next door to the four seasons, and you sure as shit dont start up a car dealership across the street from Cal Worthington.

spooner's fanboys have painted him as some sort f noble self sacrificing hero oppressed by the powers of authoritarian government, but he was a wanker, a fake lawyer and a shitty entrepreneur. maybe in 100 years donald trump will also be a hero to the same sort of dingbats.

Spooner was an abolitionist and a great thinker, your comparison to Donald Trump seems a little uninformed and well not really a good one. Your qualifications to judge dingbatism seem rather lacking.

 

[Rob Roy]

i cannot engage in debate when you constantly fall back on the straw man of "consent" to deny the power of society to enact laws. no organization created by people can ever be perfect. demanding perfection is the fools prerogative though, so go ahead and break every law you feel is unjust, and then insist that you never consented to that law, i wish you the best in prison. im sure spooner will come back from the grave and "consent" to be your fake lawyer.

Go ahead and support all laws even the shitty ones, even the ones that enable government to victimize people. Wars, prisons for non harming persons and needless suffering will never end if people obediently comply with every asshole edict.... but at least you'll be safe in your mom's basement cuz you followed the rules.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Then why didn't government wait for Spooner to fail on his own rather than legislate him into failure? Big Daddy government was scared of something, why wasn't it laughing like you? It knew Spooner was going to do, so it only let the business form so it would have excuse to make more rules which now don't exist?

spooner was a munchausian lunatic with delusions of grandeur and persecution. he was bugnuts. his moronic privatre postal service was doomed to ultimate failure, just like his self-published manifesto in 30 parts, and gibbering insane leaflets. the clown even wrote his own self-aggrandizing obituary, he was a fucking dingbat. if you want to believe he had some mystical secret that would make his private postal service superior to the federal postal service thats cool, but the dude was certifiably nuts.

i read nothing about federal legislation forcing him to shut down, nor any anti-competiton rules that have since been abolished. if you have such data, why not offer a link instead of duncecap smileys?

or is this one of those things THEY dont want you to know? perhaps spooner revealed the secret illuminati plot to dominate the world through poorly managed over priced parcel services and unreliable letter delivery THEY scheduled for the US Postal Service to start in the 1970's?

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Go ahead and support all laws even the shitty ones, even the ones that enable government to victimize people. Wars, prisons for non harming persons and needless suffering will never end if people obediently comply with every asshole edict.... but at least you'll be safe in your mom's basement cuz you followed the rules.

There are so many laws these days even judges don't know them all. Way too many for my liking.

 

[Dr Kynes]

There are so many laws these days even judges don't know them all. Way too many for my liking.

but does this drive you to embrace the wacky ravings of an 18th century fake lawyer and failed businessman who wrote insane socialist tracts and self-published his own manifesto? this is the spoonerite's idea of "progress" we should all live on "My Side of the Mountain" in a hollowed out tree and celebrate our freedom and consent to be turned into frozen coyote chow