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

[myrkul]

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And then you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post. 

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you prefer to do your violence by proxy.)

[1714108036]

1714108036

[1714108036]

1714108036

[1714108036]

1714108036

[1714108036]

1714108036

[1714108036]

1714108036

[Hawker]

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And then you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post.  

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you don't like getting your hands dirty.)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206265.msg2201602#msg2201602

Actually it was crytoanarchist said he would strangle me and you joined in to say you would be violent.

Are you saying now that your threat of violence was short of a threat to kill?  I hope you aren't expecting praise for that step back from brutishness.

[wdmw]

So you tell me that you will respond with violence if I support democracy and you deny that's a threat.  And then you say that threatening to strangle me is not a threat to kill

Again, think before you post.  

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you don't like getting your hands dirty.)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206265.msg2201602#msg2201602

Actually it was crytoanarchist said he would strangle me and you joined in to say you would be violent.

Are you saying now that your threat of violence was short of a threat to kill?  I hope do aren't expecting praise for that step back from brutishness.

Hey, I heard myrkul threatened to kill you.  What was that?

[myrkul]

Would you please stop avoiding the questions I ask you? I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

[Hawker]

Would you please stop avoiding the questions I ask you? I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder. 

I've always made that clear.  Your response has been to say that you will treat my support for democracy and a state with a monopoly on violence as an excuse to use violence yourself and then call it "self defence."

That's thuggery. 

[myrkul]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder. 

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

[Hawker]

A movement to repeal it or amend it might though

Trying to repeal the Patriot Act would be construed as terrorism by Homeland Security.

Its a big ask I know.  But people like the ACLU and so on do act as a brake on government and the government does tend to back off when faced with outraged citizens.  

The bigger point is that you live in a place where the law is basically OK.  So do I.  Scrapping that for a place where the local imam spends Friday warning that moneylenders, Jews and homosexuals are a threat to heaven and that you go to heaven with 80 virgins for killing infidels does not appeal to me.  So for me, the state is a good thing.

[Hawker]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

...snip...

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

I've always made that clear.  Your response has been to say that you will treat my support for democracy and a state with a monopoly on violence as an excuse to use violence yourself and then call it "self defence."

That's thuggery.  

Here you are standing behind your threat of violence and editing out references to it in an effort to change the subject.  Except you seem to be saying that its not a threat to join in my being strangled.  

[myrkul]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

[wdmw]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

[myrkul]

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

Probably not, I tried to some time ago.

He's gone from advocating state violence against me to outright saying that state violence is the only thing protecting me from him.

[Hawker]

I've not avoided anything.  I support democracy and a state having a monopoly of violence.  In the absence of that, there is no concept of murder.  

So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Stop editing my posts to change the subject.

Stop avoiding my questions in an attempt to change the subject.

You said that in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement, there is no concept of murder. Implying that without the state protecting me from you (by writing words on a paper that make killing someone illegal), you would kill me. That's a fairly frightening proposition. This is the danger of defining your morality by what politicians write on paper and call laws.

You have edited my post again to avoid the threat to hurt me. You've stated that you will use violence if we meet and if I don't change my beliefs to suit you.  

We see where you stand and that you won't back down.  Luckily we do have laws and jails so that if you act on your absurd sense of entitlement, there will be a cage with your name on it.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way. 

[myrkul]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way.  

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

EDIT: I suspect another difference is that I've written a program that makes a socket connection to mtgox in C99 in between fending off death threats.  My work is done so off to bed

[myrkul]

...snip...

Ok, so now you guys have both "threatened to kill each other" in each other's minds.  Any chance of moving on?

I have never threatened myrkul in any way. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. To say nothing of your comment that without a State, you consider murder to be A-OK.

[cryptoanarchist]

So if government is like a business, I can boycott it and find something else that works for me?

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted.

Unless you grow your own food and live in a cabin out in the woods, you purchase all three of those things every day.

What kind of moron are you? The government doesn't make the food I eat, nor did it build the house I live in.

Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen.

If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you?

I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole.

[myrkul]

So if government is like a business, I can boycott it and find something else that works for me?

Thanks for letting me know!

Yes, but you must also stop purchasing the government's products, which tax evaders always fail to do. Many people "boycott" EA by pirating their games. That isn't boycotting, its stealing. Too many people want to have it both ways, because they're brainless thugs.

The government doesn't produce anything- they contract with funds that they've extorted.

Saying that people who refuse to pay taxes are morally wrong to use roads is a childish argument. The money to build those roads was stolen.

If I put you in a cage, and then steal your money to feed you, are you morally wrong to eat it to survive? Does that imply consent to you?

I think you know the right answer, but are just being an asshole.

Well, if you think being stuffed in a cage and being fed with food bought with your stolen money is wrong, you should starve yourself.

[Stampbit]

the government doesnt spy on you, it just overhears sounds coming from your bedroom.

[Hawker]

...snip...

The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.

And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me.  ...snip...

You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind.  So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent.  Of course I would choose to have you arrested, prosecuted, punished and I would sue for damages.  If you are violent, that's exactly what you deserve.

What an interesting thing it is that when pushed, it turns out your idea of a free society is one in which you personally are free to attack people.  For all your whining about our existing system, at least we do have freedom of speech.

Back to the main topic of paying taxes for the government to spy on people.  If there are people who want to use violence to achieve their aims or just for vent their frustration that their ideas are never going to win elections, I want the government to spy on them and do whatever it takes to stop them.  A free society where people can peacefully debate ideas is one of the great achievements of our civilization and as such its well worth the taxes paid to defend it.  Best money ever spent!