Government Does Everything At Gunpoint

Everything government does to tax paying citizens, it does at the point of a gun.

If you support government, you support a gun in your own face.

I challenge anyone to name a single county, state, or federal program that does not ultimately derive its funding without the threat of force.

Don't like the war? Too bad. Gun in your face. Fork over your cash chump.

Don't like red light cameras? Too bad. Gun in your face. Your paying for them whether you like them or not.

Don't like crappy public schools with less than 50% graduation rates? Too bad. Gun in your face. Give me your labor chump. Your paying for them whether your kids use them or not.

Don't like paying for parking enforcement? Too bad. Gun in your face. Here's a ticket for parking 20 feet from a hydrant on the other side of the street.

Don't like paying to construct a road and then having to pay tolls to a private corporation after the road itself is sold off? Too bad. Gun in your face. Give me your loot sucker, twice.

Don't like paying billions to "climate researchers" who spend all day thinking of ways to further loot your pocket book? Too bad. Gun in your face. Bend over and kiss your ankles plebe. You'll be paying for it ten times over by the time we're done.


Prove me wrong.


[Taken from an article I authored on Fascist Soup]


[edit on 17-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

I won't prove you wrong. I agree. It doesn't matter if it's jaywalking or murder, if you refuse to comply with the state, eventually a gun will be pointed at you first and possibly used. No matter what, the state will initiate force no matter how intially trivial a trespass was made.

This thread is awesome. After everything they do to screw you, there's a gun in your face on top of it all.
Flag.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
This thread is awesome. After everything they do to screw you, there's a gun in your face on top of it all.
Flag.

Now now, lets not get carried away!

How are we supposed to save humanity with out guns in our face at all times!

I always find it amazing that most of the anti-gun zealots are socialists who have absolutely no problem with the use of guns against the citizenry by the government.

Guns make socialism possible.

It's called the Social Contract. In order to be a part of a society you must accept control placed upon you by your alliance within. The same control, in theory, should be exerted over everyone equally by everyone equally. That's the goal, and we're nowhere near it yet but we are supposed to be working towards it.

If you don't like the social contract, leave it. There are places on the earth one can still live without the interaction of a society. You won't have any of the modern comforts, and you will exist in a rather Hobbesian state-of-nature, but that's your choice.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
It's called the Social Contract. In order to be a part of a society you must accept control placed upon you by your alliance within. The same control, in theory, should be exerted over everyone equally by everyone equally. That's the goal, and we're nowhere near it yet but we are supposed to be working towards it.

If you don't like the social contract, leave it. There are places on the earth one can still live without the interaction of a society. You won't have any of the modern comforts, and you will exist in a rather Hobbesian state-of-nature, but that's your choice.

I see.

I'm simply a Neanderthal toolbox because I don't like guns in my face.

Orwell sends his regards.


btw, I never signed any contract declaring the government has a right to stick a gun in my face as far as I'm aware.





[edit on 17-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

I can see the gears of cognitive dissonance slowly grinding in here.

Don't hurt yourselves thinking too hard about it fascists; your love of violence against the innocent is a perfectly acceptable societal norm these days.

COME ON!

Someone has to have an argument in favor of putting guns in my face at all times that makes rational sense.

oh btw, the definition of Hobbesian:

English philosopher and political theorist best known for his book Leviathan (1651), in which he argues that the only way to secure civil society is through universal submission to the absolute authority of a sovereign.

That rather sounds like what you are arguing ProjectJimmy, not me.

Frankly, I'm just not happy unless I'm being threated with brutality for harming no one.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


It's "called" the social contract. Well if you've read Orwell you know that anything TPTB "call" something, it is not. News is not news, free is not free, info-tainment is neither and this contract is certainly not a contract. The term "contract" implies mutual, informed, specific and conscious consent. The OP clearly has not given this, and neither have I.

How clever, though a bit obvious to use to word "contract" so your victims can fool themselves into believing that they somehow chose thier torture. Bullies always try to think of a way of telling themselves that victims "asked for it." And in some cases the victims buy it too.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by IceOwl]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Absolutely correct. What you've said is nearly a direct quote from Ayn Rand, whether you've heard of her or not. I'd suggest downloading a copy of her works, starting with For the New Intellectual, which is a mix of selections from her other works, with notes explaining. It's written basically like a "how to be a human" book.

Ayn, however unfortunately, actually supported the existence of governments, but only if the citizens consciously opted in.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts.

Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another.

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices.

Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I can see the gears of cognitive dissonance slowly grinding in here.

No cognitive dissonance here. I figured this out a long time ago when I was but a child and my parents would remind how if I didn't comply and go to school, the cops would eventually find justification to arrest them, throw me in some sort of juvy hall and there would be nothing they could do about it. Nonetheless, as much as their words appear to imply awareness, they aren't really fully aware of what they're aware. To them a system of forced compliance by imminent threat of bodily harm is perfectly logical. That's how you do things. How else could anything be?

Follow any logical path from a minor offense to the final outcome of state-initiated aggression; it many be many steps but somewhere along the line, if the resistance is consistently maintained, you will encounter their application of force when they escalate the situation.

Originally posted by IceOwl
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Absolutely correct. What you've said is nearly a direct quote from Ayn Rand, whether you've heard of her or not. I'd suggest downloading a copy of her works, starting with For the New Intellectual, which is a mix of selections from her other works, with notes explaining. It's written basically like a "how to be a human" book.

Ayn, however unfortunately, actually supported the existence of governments, but only if the citizens consciously opted in.

Rand was a good character.

I'm very familiar with her work.

I, like yourself, lean more toward total elimination of the State.

I don't see it providing me any benefits that could not be derived ultimately from an entirely private voluntary economy and society.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't see it providing me any benefits that could not be derived ultimately from an entirely private voluntary economy and society.

I doubt it would change anything whatsoever. What is any different about it? I'm familiar with this idea and well, it's just a fancy grass-is-greener argument.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't see it providing me any benefits that could not be derived ultimately from an entirely private voluntary economy and society.

I doubt it would change anything whatsoever. What is any different about it? I'm familiar with this idea and well, it's just a fancy grass-is-greener argument.

I'm not sure where you are coming from.

What do you mean, "what is any different about it?"

Are you referring to what would be different between an entirely voluntary society and one that declares government has the right to use force against citizens that have not caused harm to anyone?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Are you referring to what would be different between an entirely voluntary society and one that declares government has the right to use force against citizens that have not caused harm to anyone?

I don't know what would prevent creep where "voluntary" would become a little less voluntary all the time. I'm not sure what would prevent private firms from using force in ways you'd disagree with. It sounds nice on paper but count me skeptical.

Imagine if one of these companies became a monopoly? Who and what would prevent it? How would one distinguish that from a government? It wouldn't even be different at all.

Edit: double-trouble

[edit on 2/17/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp


I don't know what would prevent creep where "voluntary" would become a little less voluntary all the time. I'm not sure what would prevent private firms from using force in ways you'd disagree with. It sounds nice on paper but count me skeptical.

Imagine if one of these companies became a monopoly? Who and what would prevent it? How would one distinguish that from a government? It wouldn't even be different at all.

For a monopoly to form, one must have the force of government.

A monopoly without government is an impossibility.

And your making some assumptions about who has the right to use force and when it would be applied.

Real morals are deeply rooted in the human spirit and are only subverted by dependency and survival instincts when looking at the whole of society.

Here's a real thought exercise for you to chew on:
Even violent drug dealers, for the most part, have these morals. It is not amoral to sell drugs to a willing drug user. It is a mutually agreed upon transaction. It is not amoral to use force in defending ones property, even if that property happens to be drugs. And, as the State shows us, it is not amoral to extract a punishment against those who would violate your civil and property rights.

Given that context, the violent drug dealer who extracts revenge against a rival for stealing his drugs or murdering his brother is acting completely rationally and within the moral compass of natural law.


Thinking deeply about this situation allows one to see that in a society devoid of the State, abuses of power would be extremely limited.

Even violent drug dealers do not go on murderous rampages against the innocent. Only those who are truly mentally unstable might do something like that, and in society today, we recognize they aren't as culpable as someone who is rational. Hence the insanity legal defense.

Also, in a truly free society, robbery, rape, and general mayhem would be vastly limited due to the abundance of defensive weapons available. Would you rob someone knowing they were armed? Would you rob someone knowing that a private investigator might track you down? Would you kill someone knowing that the victims family will be hunting you down? Would you brandish a gun in a store where half the customers are packing heat?

The American Indians lived under a very similar society with out police or a central state. - and while their society was not perfect, justice was served and the peace was, for the most part, well kept and very stable.

The American frontiersman, who came to mine for gold, established mining communities devoid of the State, and the peace was well and generally kept.

While the idea of a purely voluntary society may seem Utopian and unworkable, I think history shows us that such a society would find ways to deal fair justice, keep the peace, and ensure rights are upheld without the use of State sanctioned force.






[edit on 17-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

thats is true...

DAMN we need to do something..... before its to late...

Viva La Revolution!!!

reply to post by mnemeth1


In fact, I do support a "stateless" way of life. I also support a largely unowned way of life. I feel I could be a member of this utopia. I don't need laws to tell me anything about how to act without infinging upon others, even if noone was armed. It all depends upon how humans act and treat one another. In a truely civilized society, arms wouldn't me much of a thing to think about either way and noone would care what you have. How is a system held together, or more accurately, in inhibition, by private and individual threat of force rather than centralized threat of force not still doing everything at gunpoint?

However, I see nothing, using current human thinking, preventing aggregation of communities into larger and larger concentrations of power over time. Once they gather enough together, what prevents them from attacking other areas? Private ownership of everything in a business-like way would only exacerbate it-- private subways, private roads, private armies, private this, private that.

Back in the day, in mining communities et al, without fast communication and travel you likely were pretty out of touch with government oversight. I don't have extensive knowledge but borrowing on human tendencies I'll agree that they likely formed their own little governments. There's little else that could happen, be it mining communities, farming or whatever. Somewhere, sometime, someone would enforce something and decide how it should be enforced.

Of course, we cannot forget that that way of life eventually led to this way of life. Why would it not happen again unless people are different somehow?