Make sure you pay your taxes to the government that spies on you!

[AzureEngineer]

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road.

[1713856894]

1713856894

[1713856894]

1713856894

[myrkul]

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road.

Or, I could voluntarily pay for only those services I used, and not force people to pay for services they don't use, or even want.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Let's turn this around:
So everyone who doesn't pay taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Oh, wow, only takes changing one word to turn the position you're (falsely) accusing me of into exactly your position.

[Hawker]

Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?

Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road.

Or, I could voluntarily pay for only those services I used, and not force people to pay for services they don't use, or even want.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Let's turn this around:
So everyone who doesn't pay taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Oh, wow, only takes one word to turn the position you're (falsely) accusing me of into exactly your position.

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

[myrkul]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

[Hawker]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level.

[Severian]

Basically, if at any point along the way you use a resource paid for by the government

Ah, yes. The old Soviet argument of "You must contribute to the State for all the great things the State provides to you, comrade."

[wdmw]

It's tedious reading two sides of an argument talking past each other.

I haven't, and I honestly wouldn't. That's quite extreme. I would, however, point out that they are supporting aggression, and if that doesn't change their mind, I will refuse to associate with them. Only if they continued to force themselves and their views on me, would I act in defense. Hawker's been pretty adamant about forcing his views on me.

So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target.  That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.

Well, thanks to one of you for being reasonable.

[Severian]

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you

Show me where myrkul threatened this. It sounds out character.

[Hawker]

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you

Show me where myrkul threatened this. It sounds out character.

Long thread.  Look for a post from cryptanarchist saying he will strangle me.  And then myrkul joining in.  I'm shocked at myrkul sinking to this level as well.

[myrkul]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level.

You pay people to kill people who disagree with you. Is murder by proxy somehow better?

Face it, Hawker. You support murder. You support robbery. You support people who make the Mafia look like the nice guys. And you're calling me a bad guy for resisting that.

[Hawker]

The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.

No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself.

Again the thug approach.  You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level.

You pay people to kill people who disagree with you. Is murder by proxy somehow better?

Face it, Hawker. You support murder. You support robbery. You support people who make the Mafia look like the nice guys. And you're calling me a bad guy for resisting that.

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

[Severian]

You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery

That's actually true. Remember that the entire German nation was held accountable for the crimes of its leaders. Personally, I don't think this is the correct view. But to be consistent in your support of the government that prosecuted the Germans, you must also hold the same view for your own support of a criminal, war-mongering government.

and that entitles you to kill them. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself, but I only have the right to defend myself from a present and physical threat. Killing people for ideological disagreements is a practice best left to those that support the State.

[myrkul]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

[Hawker]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence."

That's sickening. 

[Hawker]

You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery

That's actually true. Remember that the entire German nation was held accountable for the crimes of its leaders. Personally, I don't think this is the correct view. But to be consistent in your support of the government that prosecuted the Germans, you must also hold the same view for your own support of a criminal, war-mongering government.

and that entitles you to kill them. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself, but I only have the right to defend myself from a present and physical threat. Killing people for ideological disagreements is a practice best left to those that support the State.

Agree.  Disagreement is normal.  Death threats, less so.

[Severian]

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

A very difficult concept for some to understand, especially those with a vested interest in force and fraud via having a government job or those that receive government benefits.

[myrkul]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence."

That's sickening. 

No, I am saying that if someone pays a murderer, knowing that they pay a murderer, that makes them just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

I'm not going to kill someone just because they "disagree with me."

[Hawker]

The problem here is legitimacy.  You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them.  You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.

If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself?

No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

You can not delegate a right you do not have.

Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence."

That's sickening. 

No, I am saying that if someone pays a murderer, knowing that they pay a murderer, that makes them just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

I'm not going to kill someone just because they "disagree with me."

Back-pedalling?  Lets clarify.

I believe in democracy, a strong state with separation of powers and that if you live in such a state, you can be compelled to pay taxes.  If I meet you, I will say this to you face to face.  You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

When this death threat thing started, you said you would kill me.  Since then, you have insisted you are entitled to kill me.  Is that still your position?

[myrkul]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

[Hawker]

You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

Do you deny that?

Lets look at the post you editted:

I believe in democracy, a strong state with separation of powers and that if you live in such a state, you can be compelled to pay taxes.  If I meet you, I will say this to you face to face.  You say that my beliefs are a danger to you making me a murderer and robber.

When this death threat thing started, you said you would kill me.  Since then, you have insisted you are entitled to kill me.  Is that still your position?

The interesting thing is that given the chance to step back from the death threats, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  

Do you think no-one will notice?