I've only ever gone to public schools, lol. Private is probably no better at teaching what is morality, what government or what truth, money or law is.
I understand your philosophy. I just disagree with it. It's not a case of being so simple minded that I just can't possibly understand your deep level of thinking. It's just that my experience on this planet has given me an entirely different perspective then yours. It's like arguing whether or not it's a mountain or a hill. Either way, it's not going anywhere, so you need to learn how to navigate over or around it. Or not. That your voluntary decision to make.
Consciousness is not cognitive liberty. Cognitive liberty is the ability to use critical thinking to identify and solve problems. You know... The seven liberal arts. Some private schools teach the active literacies (the liberal arts), which can give them a great advantage. One of the benfiets of being taught the active literacies and using it effectively is the ability to spot fallacies.
This level of thinking is not deep at all. That's the fucked up part about it. I never claimed it was superior knowledge, just that we are taught bunk since birth. So don't go spraying your sarcasm at me. Regardless of your experience. Taxation is theft. Regardless of what you think is a mountain or a hill, (silly analogy) taxation is theft. You either agree with it or not.
Do you know how most universities were established? Or museums and libraries and roads and education before the 70s and 40s? Everything you see is built by our kindness. Just take gun control which I'm against. Something bad happens and you always ser a outcry from a large portion of the public. They are willing to sacrifice there freedoms there monies a lot for more control of guns. Now take the government, they totally fuck up the last few wars we've been through, or education, by there own numbers its getting worse. And do you see the state with a outcry to give the parents more power and relinquish theres? Hell no! Sent from my SCH-I605 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Because we didnt agree to it! If your neighborhood got together took everyone's money with force and decided to build one neighbor a swimming pool with everybody's money you would obviously call this theft. Now if this same neighborhood got together and decided to start a neighborhood watch and you were opposed and didn't feel like you need to contribute would you still think if they took your money this is theft? Sent from my SCH-I605 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Others have, more or less, agreed to it. And when they do agree, your ilk calls them names and say they are duped, etc. I don't have children and pay school taxes. I don't feel like I'm being stolen from. Am I a dupe?
So the simple fact that I don't agree or give consent for my money being taken from me to fund things I don't want to fund, isn't enough for you to realize that this is theft?
You should have read this the first time. Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads. Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery? Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued. Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract? Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . . Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government? Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head. Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent? Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens. Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.] Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong. Me: Why? Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US . Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes. Statist: To some degree, of course. Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me? Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it. Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children? Statist: Of course not! Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all? Statist: I guess not. Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it? Statist: Yes, that would make little sense. Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you arevoluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense? Statist: I can certainly see that position. Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position? Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong. Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.
better reapply your spectacles... it's an interview between whistleblower Richard Grove and former teacher John Taylor Gatto, the guy who won teacher of the year award in New York the same year he quit saying that he no longer wanted to harm children. besides, what you just did was commit the ad hominem fallacy, attacking the man and not the information.
No. If you don't like living in a complex and diverse society, you should move to an island of your own kind. What yer advocating would work nicely with other people who share your fundamental assumptions. Assumptions are not truths. Sorry.
I don't get it, what are these "assumptions" you speak of? That taxation is theft? Not an assumption. Round and round we go.
I'm living in an approaching police state called California, but yeah. No one owns this "complex and diverse society" therefore I'm not subjected to any payments, or "rent". I'd rather voluntarily interact with people than live on an island but thanks for the suggestion. What exactly am I assuming, that you arent?