I would hope the "government" would be able to get capital legitimately. You know. By providing goods and services? Like EVERYONE else. I like to call myself an anarchist but its all semantics. I just want the "government" to aquire legetimate money. Not stolen tax dollars. If you oay taxes to a cause you disagree with, then you are not free. Yea you got a "vote" but uts meaningless. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Wow those videos were incredible. Especially the 2nd video. How does she say that garbage without laughing at herself? Maybe if we just tell people not to steal and hurt one another they'll do it. And blame teh menz while you're at it grrrrrl!!!!11!1
ummm....thats kinda exactly why they collect taxes lol. even if you feel dollars are squandered, thats literally the reason for taxes. you certainly cant deny they offer services paid for by your tax.
So if I rob you and then use some of that money to buy myself a new tv and some to buy you some groceries you should be ok with that? This is a literal real world translation of taxation.
that isnt what i was saying, and i am opposed to both taxes and all forms of government and authority aside from contract enforcement, which needs not be government. i still stand behind the intended meaning of the post. however, its more like: if i take a portion of all your income i will combine it with everybody elses to maintain your roads, public services, water, energy, all the things you couldnt or wouldnt usually be able to without combining funds......but ill also take some of it for my own welfare.....and skim off the top as well.
"You think you can tell a rapist to stop doing what he's doing?" "Yes!" And yet, she was raped. I guess she forgot to say "hey, don't rape me!"
Huh? What does any of this have to do with me calling him out on a false assumption he made? I have no idea where you are going with this...I never said anything about the competency of any militarized force... Oh, and fyi, it most certainly is expected and understandable that civilians in war zones get killed. It's called the fog of war...but just because that may happen, sad and unfortunate as it is, does not automatically mean the war in which caused it is unjust (im not picking out any war in particular, just wars in general). And what war are you reffering to? If you mean all wars then you must not have the best grasp on the philosophy of aggression and counter-aggression.
Yes. Aggression to stem potential future aggression can be considered counter-aggression by it's very nature.
Again, you're going to have to define appropriate. Every war has a goal. Whether or not it's appropriate changes based on what those waging war hope to accomplish.
moral. in your opinion is it ever acceptable despite the reasoning (again, unless youre under attack defending itself)
It seems to me that even if you are a liberal progressive you must live under the umbrella of laws in the country in which you live and there is no higher law in america than the us constitution. As long as the 2nd amendment exists ax it does, without amendment or some overriding case law to the contrary, the USA citizen maintains the right to own a gun. Period. Now that says nothing about making bullets and bullet manufacturing equipment cost prohibitive. That's the route frustrated gun control advocates will take.
Yup. One of the very videos I posted showed a Colorado legislator who thought she was banning AR-15 ammunition.