Then shoot me... If I'm stealing your money by threat of force then shoot me...

[Freedom1Man]

They can bind that next generation until they are of age to decide for themselves. At that point in time, if they do not consent to be governed, they should leave, go find a mountain top, or actively move to replace the government.

If the People, as somewhat cohesive unit, choose to be governed, than any tiny number who choose not to be governed are the ones who should get out of Dodge. They should not be able to live in the governed area, enjoying the fruits of that governance, but choosing not to be governed.

Have your cake. Or eat it. Choose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

So, we should run away because the government is running amuck?

It sounds like you support mob rule (democracy) rather than individual liberty.

If you don't like being mugged maybe you should move to another city/state/country...

 

[Citizen]

The People of the US (and, I submit, all of the posters here) are consenting to be governed. If you don't leave the country or actively change the government, you ARE consenting. That consent started when the government was formed or when your ancestors chose to come here or to stay here. Absent specific action on your part, you inherited that consent.

If you do not consent to be governed, leave, go find a deserted mountain top, or take very specific steps (such as our Founders did) to change out the government to which you do not consent.

Readers,

If I have to leave, then it really isn't consent is it? Consent is consent. The test is whether I can refuse consent, and still remain here.

Much of his first sentence is really just about implied consent or assumed consent. Both are fictions that are not necessary. All the governments have to do is ask me. No reliance on implied consent or assumed consent is necessary. I am available 24/7 to answer that question. They can take it right out of the realm of assumption/implication and put it squarely into the realm of certainty.

And, his comment about taking steps to change the government shows a bizarre, twisted idea of consent. Consent is consent. It is voluntary. By his definition, if I do not consent, I must work at the political level to change the government. That's not consent simply because until the change occurs, I am still ruled even though I do not consent.

With his comment that I must take up arms against my rulers like the Founders to change the government to which I do not consent, the poster I quoted makes my argument for me. Its hardly consent if I have to fight them, is it? The quoted poster proves the government will not and does not respect my refused consent--a sure proof that the government is more than happy to ignore my consent, that consent of the governed is a lie.

 

[Citizen]

Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

"Can one generation of men, by any act of theirs, bind those which are to follow them? I say, by the laws of nature, there being between generation and generation, as between nation and nation, no other obligatory law."

"Every generation comes equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth which He made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like, them, were but tenants for life."

In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html



Great resource website by the way. I would urge readers to save it in their favorites folder.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

They can bind that next generation until they are of age to decide for themselves. At that point in time, if they do not consent to be governed, they should leave, go find a mountain top, or actively move to replace the government.

If the People, as somewhat cohesive unit, choose to be governed, than any tiny number who choose not to be governed are the ones who should get out of Dodge. They should not be able to live in the governed area, enjoying the fruits of that governance, but choosing not to be governed.

Have your cake. Or eat it. Choose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

On edit: I cited THREE options. There may be more. But the one dishonest option, the one that cannot morally be taken, is to live under the fruits of the governance, but claim that it is unjust and inapplicable because one "does not consent." Unless one is doing something to exercise that lack of consent, he has consented, regardless of the lip-service and foot-stamping he gives to non-consent.

Keyboard commandoism.

Your options, aren't. In fact, history shows us that living on a mountain top living freely will only get your wife shot in the head through the front door by a pissed off FBI sniper as she holds you son in her arms. Go ahead and scratch that one off your list. I'm sure the others can be scratched off as well by anyone who wishes to apply the principles of liberty logically and without exceptions on the grounds of ignorance (don't know how else it'd work without government coercion).


Edit: I realize I haven't really discussed the original topic I don't think. I'll just simply reply to the thread title. The challenge to shoot someone "if they're stealing." There is a pretty simple answer to this - there is a lack of imminency which restricts the legitimacy of homicide on the grounds of self defense.

 

[Citizen]

They can bind that next generation until they are of age to decide for themselves.

Keyboard commandoism.

Two fallacies here.

First, applicability. Nobody's talking about children.

Second, the word bind is code for coerce. Meaning, violate their refused consent.

My equals cannot legitimately govern me without my consent. How could they? If we are equal, what sets them above me? The answer of course is nothing. They cannot legitimately govern me, and you, without our express individual consent is not being governed, it is being ruled.


PS: Note the poster is resorting to name calling--keyboard commandoism. He can either refute the arguments or he can't.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

They can bind that next generation until they are of age to decide for themselves. At that point in time, if they do not consent to be governed, they should leave, go find a mountain top, or actively move to replace the government.

If the People, as somewhat cohesive unit, choose to be governed, than any tiny number who choose not to be governed are the ones who should get out of Dodge. They should not be able to live in the governed area, enjoying the fruits of that governance, but choosing not to be governed.

Have your cake. Or eat it. Choose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

On edit: I cited THREE options. There may be more. But the one dishonest option, the one that cannot morally be taken, is to live under the fruits of the governance, but claim that it is unjust and inapplicable because one "does not consent." Unless one is doing something to exercise that lack of consent, he has consented, regardless of the lip-service and foot-stamping he gives to non-consent.

Keyboard commandoism.

So if I get pulled over for speeding and the officer says, may I search your car, and I say no, I do not consent to searches or seizures, but he moves to search my car anyway, I am consenting unless I physically move to stop him?

 

[georg jetson]

So if I get pulled over for speeding and the officer says, may I search your car, and I say no, I do not consent to searches or seizures, but he moves to search my car anyway, I am consenting unless I physically move to stop him?

Take it one step further and see what is being suggested...

Your parents gave consent to search your car before you were born so unless you physically move to stop them you're acquiescing to their consent.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So if I get pulled over for speeding and the officer says, may I search your car, and I say no, I do not consent to searches or seizures, but he moves to search my car anyway, I am consenting unless I physically move to stop him?

Exactly what they are saying and if you comply there was no force being used.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Eye is falling into the fallacy thinking that the stronger party or majority party setting the rules is consent. I find this odd after he continually emphatically emphasizing we are not a democracy.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Wow what a hubrisly laden statist post.

The People of the US (and, I submit, all of the posters here) are consenting to be governed. If you don't leave the country or actively change the government, you ARE consenting. That consent started when the government was formed or when your ancestors chose to come here or to stay here. Absent specific action on your part, you inherited that consent.

Broad overgeneralization based on opinion with no substantiation to back back anything here. Especially the silly idea of "inherited" consent.

If you do not consent to be governed, leave, go find a deserted mountain top, or take very specific steps (such as our Founders did) to change out the government to which you do not consent. Absent that, you are just a bunch of keyboard commandos.

Another ad hominem, advocating violence knowing full well that would happen if people did what the founders did. They would die, would you be happy if that happened Eye? Sounds to me that you would have not been on the side of the colonist who decided to overthrow their "inherited" consent......(I am now laughing at that line it so silly it is so liege like).

You don't like people expressing views who are contrary to your point so you just call them names and want them to leave. And you use a name with a reference to war. The only true revolution comes from education, so no I will not stop being a "keyboard" commando, I will not stop speaking my mind, I will not stop telling people what I learned about history and the wrongs of this government, all things things are peaceful ways to effect change and I think why it frustrates you is because you know it even if it is a knowledge that you won't admit.

So I suppose Rosa Parks should have just not rode the bus by riding the bus she "consented" to the laws and rules.

That is the only response folks saying that they don't consent to be governed deserve or will get from me.

Oh no Eye? Please don't stop responding we are sorry we so need your responses...... Such arrogance.

Moving on.

I doubt it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

Eye is falling into the fallacy thinking that the stronger party or majority party setting the rules is consent. I find this odd after he continually emphatically emphasizing we are not a democracy.

Please don't make my arguments for me. You make them in a way that allows you easy refutal. I have said what I intend to say on the matter for others' (not you guys') benefit, to help them see the shallowness of the "I don't consent" foolishness. My words stand and I don't feel the need to add to them or to respond to you (other than to point out your misrepresentation of what I said).

Folks, please read what I actually write, rather than lend credence to strawmen that others attribute to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Please don't make my arguments for me. You make them in a way that allows you easy refutal. I have said what I intend to say on the matter for others' (not you guys') benefit, to help them see the shallowness of the "I don't consent" foolishness. My words stand and I don't feel the need to add to them or to respond to you (other than to point out your misrepresentation of what I said).

Folks, please read what I actually write, rather than lend credence to strawmen that others attribute to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I did read what you actually wrote. I broke it down, and explained why I disagree and showed how your argument is coming across. Funny thing is you haven't refute anything just posted an unsubstantiated opinion, and appears in doing so you are making the arguments for others so they are easy for you to refute.

You are setting up the argument that by being here it is consent. That is not the topic off the thread and that isn't refuting anybody's consent. It is setting up an arbitrary argument so that you can then post your opinion on it and call anybody who disagrees with you shallow. (that I don't mind it being off topic because I love thread drift, and it is germane to much of the discussion)

My reply wasn't really a "refutation" because others already did a great job of already doing so. You supposedly moved on without even an attempt at substantiating your argument or refuting the well thought out and rational responses to your statement of opinion. I was simply pointing out how arrogant you sounded, how silly your rational was, and personal you seemed to make people exercises of free speech.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Wow what a hubrisly laden statist post.



Broad overgeneralization based on opinion with no substantiation to back back anything here. Especially the silly idea of "inherited" consent.



Another ad hominem, advocating violence knowing full well that would happen if people did what the founders did. They would die, would you be happy if that happened Eye? Sounds to me that you would have not been on the side of the colonist who decided to overthrow their "inherited" consent......(I am now laughing at that line it so silly it is so liege like).

You don't like people expressing views who are contrary to your point so you just call them names and want them to leave. And you use a name with a reference to war. The only true revolution comes from education, so no I will not stop being a "keyboard" commando, I will not stop speaking my mind, I will not stop telling people what I learned about history and the wrongs of this government, all things things are peaceful ways to effect change and I think why it frustrates you is because you know it even if it is a knowledge that you won't admit.

So I suppose Rosa Parks should have just not rode the bus by riding the bus she "consented" to the laws and rules.



Oh no Eye? Please don't stop responding we are sorry we so need your responses...... Such arrogance.



I doubt it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Hello kettle, my name is pot.....

 

[Citizen]

Take it one step further and see what is being suggested...

Your parents gave consent to search your car before you were born so unless you physically move to stop them you're acquiescing to their consent.

Wow! Great point. Really shows the absurdity of the other side's argument.

So, its 1789, and my multi-great-grandparents are anti-Federalists. Their neighbors vote a government which then forces itself on my great-grandparents unless they move. They don't move, aquiescing to their neighbors' consent. And, unless I move to prevent my multi-great-grandparents aquiescence, I am aquiescing myself. Hahahhahahahaahahaha!!

Of course, the hidden lie is that my mulit-great-grandparents' neighbors had all the right in the world to establish a government for themselves; but, not one tiny bit of a right to extend that government onto my multi-great-grandparents.

 

[marshaul]

But the one dishonest option, the one that cannot morally be taken, is to live under the fruits of the governance, but claim that it is unjust and inapplicable because one "does not consent."

This is really mafia logic here. Who are you to declare what the fruits of governance are, or to insist that I avail myself of them?

Mafia collector: "You live under the fruits of our 'protection', but you claim that our extortion is unjust because you 'do not consent'? Vaffanculo!"

What if I don't want your "fruits"? What if I believe they don't exist, or worse represent a net harm to myself, my property, and my family?

Why should I have to flee my hometown – leave my friends, my home, my family – to escape your predations?

Unless one is doing something to exercise that lack of consent, he has consented, regardless of the lip-service and foot-stamping he gives to non-consent.

"Unless a woman successfully fights off her rapist with force, she has consented, regardless of the lip-service and foot-stamping she gives to non-consent."

Give. Me. A. Break.

 

[Primus]

I agree with Eye and tried saying it many times. You have the FREEDOM to move to a different town (to fight property taxes), state (to avoid income taxes), or even country (to avoid all taxes).

The fact of the matter is, as it's already been stated and cited by others, this country was built on the premise that there WOULD be TAXES. There always have been some in some form. Now I get it, and AGREE, that they get way out of hand. But again, you can change it in multiple ways.

Here is you premise (as I see it). You want to be able to just refuse taxes in general, or have such control on where ever single cent of your money goes. So you seem to want to be able to say "I want $3.24 to go to THAT road. I want $.89 to go military budget. etc. etc." OR you want to be able to just say NO and pay NO taxes. Again, if we all just paid whenever we felt like it, the country would collapse.

Yes, you are part of a larger body of people. It's called the United States of America. You have to do things to contribute to this country. One of those things happens to be pay taxes. If I had my way you would have to do ALOT more then that to help the country. If you believe in this country as I do then you would except that. If living in this Country and loving this country means I'm a Statist, then so be it. I'm proud to be a Statist (more of a Minarchist, but we'll use Statist). You (not everyone reading, the select few and know who they are) say your all about liberty and freedom for yourself. So be it, this country wasn't built on guys being selfish just thinking about themselves.

So leave, stop working (can't pay taxes if you don't have any money), or VOTE for a better state/federal rep. who will make sure YOU don't pay taxes. I can promise that complaining about it online will NOT help you or anyone else.

 

[77zach]

I agree with Eye and tried saying it many times. You have the FREEDOM to move to a different town (to fight property taxes), state (to avoid income taxes), or even country (to avoid all taxes).

The fact of the matter is, as it's already been stated and cited by others, this country was built on the premise that there WOULD be TAXES. There always have been some in some form. Now I get it, and AGREE, that they get way out of hand. But again, you can change it in multiple ways.

Here is you premise (as I see it). You want to be able to just refuse taxes in general, or have such control on where ever single cent of your money goes. So you seem to want to be able to say "I want $3.24 to go to THAT road. I want $.89 to go military budget. etc. etc." OR you want to be able to just say NO and pay NO taxes. Again, if we all just paid whenever we felt like it, the country would collapse.

Yes, you are part of a larger body of people. It's called the United States of America. You have to do things to contribute to this country. One of those things happens to be pay taxes. If I had my way you would have to do ALOT more then that to help the country. If you believe in this country as I do then you would except that. If living in this Country and loving this country means I'm a Statist, then so be it. I'm proud to be a Statist (more of a Minarchist, but we'll use Statist). You (not everyone reading, the select few and know who they are) say your all about liberty and freedom for yourself. So be it, this country wasn't built on guys being selfish just thinking about themselves.

So leave, stop working (can't pay taxes if you don't have any money), or VOTE for a better state/federal rep. who will make sure YOU don't pay taxes. I can promise that complaining about it online will NOT help you or anyone else.

Never thought I'd see one of Obama's speeches on OCDO.

I think you're a government "worker" comrad Primus. Probably a tax collector or school teacher.

 

[Citizen]

Never thought I'd see one of Obama's speeches on OCDO.

I think you're a government "worker" comrad Primus. Probably a tax collector or school teacher.

(chuckle) Primus, either didn't read our refutations of their bizarre definition of consent, or can't refute us.

 

[WalkingWolf]

People generally who are for paying taxes, are not paying any. Same reason I have found that some of the most vocal anti gun are felons.

 

[Citizen]

I agree with Eye and tried saying it many times. You have the FREEDOM to move to a different town (to fight property taxes), state (to avoid income taxes), or even country (to avoid all taxes).

The fact of the matter is, as it's already been stated and cited by others, this country was built on the premise that there WOULD be TAXES. There always have been some in some form. Now I get it, and AGREE, that they get way out of hand. But again, you can change it in multiple ways.

Here is you premise (as I see it). You want to be able to just refuse taxes in general, or have such control on where ever single cent of your money goes. So you seem to want to be able to say "I want $3.24 to go to THAT road. I want $.89 to go military budget. etc. etc." OR you want to be able to just say NO and pay NO taxes. Again, if we all just paid whenever we felt like it, the country would collapse.

Yes, you are part of a larger body of people. It's called the United States of America. You have to do things to contribute to this country. One of those things happens to be pay taxes. If I had my way you would have to do ALOT more then that to help the country. If you believe in this country as I do then you would except that. If living in this Country and loving this country means I'm a Statist, then so be it. I'm proud to be a Statist (more of a Minarchist, but we'll use Statist). You (not everyone reading, the select few and know who they are) say your all about liberty and freedom for yourself. So be it, this country wasn't built on guys being selfish just thinking about themselves.

So leave, stop working (can't pay taxes if you don't have any money), or VOTE for a better state/federal rep. who will make sure YOU don't pay taxes. I can promise that complaining about it online will NOT help you or anyone else.

Bolded is the foundation upon which the rest of his argument rests. And, it contains at least one unstated false premise: society is government/government is society.

His is sloppy thinking, a failure to perceive a distinction/difference. He says, "Yes, you are a part of a larger body of people," and then calls it the United States of America. The government is not the nation. The nation is the people. The government is the government.

Further, he offers no substantiation for why "you have to do things to contribute to this country". He just asserts it. Now, if he uses the usual explanation this mentality offers, he'll be along shortly and say something like, "you receive benefits, therefore you must pay", without actually explaining why you or I should pay even for the benefits we might agree are benefits if we did not actually agree to the obligation voluntarily.

His whole argument rests on a socialist/communist construct. The individual owes to "society". Society is much or everything; the individual is little or nothing.

They'll use any and every argument to justify their position that it is legitimate for them to coerce (threaten violence) to force you to pay. They will even distort consent all to hell. But, the one thing they won't do is cleanly explain why its OK for some equals to coerce money from other equals. Their arguments are always full of holes. They're really just avoiding coming right out and saying, "because I want to", which would really just prove they're lying about consent and equality. Nope, they can't afford to do that.