12 votes

How long will you argue the degree of your slavery?

Yes, you are a slave, we all are.

Instead of doing something about it, like getting rid of the slave master. We argue the degree of our slavery.

Just in case you did not know, the following is a description of a natural free individual. Note the word NATURAL.

Each one of us is a natural free spirit and when we are born into human form we are automatically a natural free individual. This is Natural Law and it is not negotiable.

As long as you do not bring harm to another individual or their property, no other human on this earth can tell you what to do. Every penny you earn or inherit belongs to you. No other human on this earth has a right to anything of yours unless you give it voluntarily. No human on this earth has a right to use force on you.

Now, look at your life, look at the force that is being used on you everyday. Government and taxation of any kind is unnatural and immoral. If you resist, force will be used on you, if you keep resisting, deadly force will be used on you.

We are not free, we have never been free. We are the worst kind of slave, a willing one.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" Goethe

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have been thinking this for

I have been thinking this for a months now... its extremely saddening at times.

Cyril's picture

Better be a slave and think like THE FREE, than to be free and

Better be a slave and think like THE FREE:

http://www.youtu.be/yfHWChrsYfk

Than to be free*** and think like THE SLAVE:

http://www.dailypaul.com/256592/lady-supports-obama-b-c-he-g...

... No ?

As accessory question:

Which one of the above has chosen to surrender on their freedom, and which one has chosen to fight for it ?

Just IMO.

*** including: free of labor...

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

BET was airing Roots over the

BET was airing Roots over the Martin Luther King weekend. I hadn't seen it since it originally aired when I was around 9. Any way....my thoughts after watching it was that we are all sharecroppers..and isn't that a shitty thing to be.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

There is definitely a war

There is definitely a war against individualism going on. I can't believe some people believe in something as paradoxical as personal freedom through the collective.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Read yahoo "news" and their comment sections

It appears the sheep are prepared to accept slavery forever.

We accept slavery because the

We accept slavery because the alternative is poverty, death, or imprisonment - all of which are giant decreases in the amount of freedom.
What would you have us do?

"As long as you do not bring harm to another individual or their property, no other human on this earth can tell you what to do. Every penny you earn or inherit belongs to you. No other human on this earth has a right to anything of yours unless you give it voluntarily. No human on this earth has a right to use force on you."

Anyone can tell you what to do if they have the power to back up their coercions. Without (or with) a government, the only man with a gun can tell you what to do. A gang has more power than you and can tell you what to do. Consider that rights do not exist in the natural state. The natural state is the survival of the fittest. The fittest has the ability - not the right - to take what he/she pleases.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

We are all happy slaves.

Governments will always trickle down or up our taxes until we become happy slaves.

I am not a willing slave, I

I am not a willing slave, I just pay to keep from being confined against my will. If only we could start a country that was actually FREE! Could we carve out a spot in Antarctica? There's got to be a place we could be free!

my thoughts exactly!

http://www.dailypaul.com/272266/they-want-you-to-stay-in-the... was my contribution to this topic.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

OK

No arguing, but not volunteering to agree with your viewpoint (which sounds false to me), what next?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home

Joe

I believe

viable answers are possible, hence why I am an endorsing a newly established political Party which argues for the dignifying prerogative of individual choice concerning public domain, and the right to withdraw from institutional abuse (including all taxation).

Info' here
http://www.facebook.com/FreeDominionPoliticalParty

Competitively false?

The OP (to me) recognizes the wrong of argument.

The new political party announces the willful employment of argument.

That exposes a contradiction.

1. Argument = not a good idea

2. Argument = we are here to argue

I think that it is competitively more accurate to avoid arguments and to work for agreements if the goal is Liberty.

Joe

>

1) OP

Sorry, please explain what this means

2) 'the wrong of argument'

Disagreement: I see the conception of argument as an intellectual position when making a case, be it protagonist/('for' ~agreement) or antagonist/('against' ~disagreement) concerning an issue

3) 'The new political party announces the willful employment of argument'

Yes because there are unethical positions assumed by domestic policy which violate personal agency: taxation, mandated insurance etc; conversely there are other positions which deny personal agency including individual choice to fund/defund public chapters, for example

4) 'That exposes a contradiction'

Disagreement and as similarly pointed above, the virtue of choice permits protagonist/antagonist views while arriving at ethical principle

5) 'I think that it is competitively more accurate to avoid arguments and to work for agreements if the goal is Liberty'

Perhaps while paradoxically your commentary itself is an argument; so do you agree with the Platform of individual choice concerning public domain, or not (and if so, why)?

OP = Original Poster

The author of the Topic is the OP.

Disagreement is self-evident. What is the goal?

A. Find where the competitive viewpoints agree.

B. Dominate the target viewpoint by any means whatsoever.

C. Following orders without question (dictionary definition?)

Ethics are perspectives worthy of argument?

I think that a more competitive perspective is such that "ethics" (so called) are the results of people seeking to find agreement without resorting to deception, threats of violence, or violence as a means by which one perspective dominates all the other competitive perspectives.

I have my way of viewing life and I think it is accurate and competitive (because it is accurate).

"Yes because there are unethical positions assumed by domestic policy which violate personal agency:..."

Personal agency is an example of a viewpoint. How many people understand that viewpoint in a way that is universal to everyone without exception?

If two people are unable to understand "personal agency" in the same way, both people having two different definitions of the term, then which person has the more accurate understanding of personal agency?

Does one person dominate the other person in cases where one person has a different understanding of personal agency compared to the other?

What is the process by which one person defines personal agency the same way as any other person also defines personal agency?

"Yes because there are unethical positions assumed by domestic policy which violate personal agency: taxation..."

I am being taxed right now, as my life is altered by the contact I have with that sentence above, and now I am taxing my time and energy, my will power, my brain power, my power to survive well, and as this taxation is playing out in my life, right now: I'm trying to understand exactly what the term "taxation" means in this context of this discussion on this topic.

Taxation = robbery by criminals with badges?

There are easily, now, 3 terms that are subject to very wide ranges of understanding:

1.
Ethics
2.
Personal agency
3.
Taxation

"mandated insurance"

What does that mean? If that means the same thing as taxation, whereby people claim to be authorized to rob other people, then the concept of calling crimes by other names, is a crime.

Fraud

Aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support, to criminals, by helping the criminals cover up their crimes, by using words and terms that work to cover up those crimes, is crime in fact.

Why do it?

Who benefits?

1.
"Disagreement and as similarly pointed above, the virtue of choice permits protagonist/antagonist views while arriving at ethical principle"

2.
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

I can explain my competitive perspective in direct comparison to the perspective reported in that short list of 2 perspectives listed above, and for the life of me I can't explain, without accessing a process that allows me to explain, the other viewpoint.

1.
"Disagreement and as similarly pointed above, the virtue of choice permits protagonist/antagonist views while arriving at ethical principle"

How can a "choice" be a virtue? If I choose to invent, produce, and release a virus that destroys all life on Earth, for example, then I, a human being, having made that choice: I make a virtue?

"Perhaps while paradoxically your commentary itself is an argument..."

If the perspective I offer with English symbols is perceived by someone else as an "argument", so named, then as far as I am concerned my goal of transferring my perspective intact has failed.

Is there a process by which one perspective perceived by one person can be transferred to someone else intact and thereby avoid the miscommunications that often occur, such as this example where I am offering a competitive viewpoint, and this effort appears to be misunderstood to be an argument, so named?

If such a process exists, where one person attempts to transfer a competitive perspective accurately, and succeeds, and if so, if such a process exists, what is that process called in English?

"do you agree with the Platform of individual choice concerning public domain"

I have a very difficult time understanding the English symbols arranged in the order offered by the person offering a viewpoint as exemplified by that series of words quoted above.

What is "public domain"?

"Perhaps while paradoxically your commentary itself is an argument; so do you agree with the Platform of individual choice concerning public domain, or not (and if so, why)?"

I don't speak falsehood, if possible, I prefer to speak factually, therefore the question asked is impossible to answer accurately without at least some progress toward the goal of understanding the viewpoint being offered.

Example:

If you can place someone inside the "public domain" then do so, and then I can get an idea as to what it is, and then I'm going to want to know what any person has to do, according to you, to get in that "public domain", and then I will want to know how a person can get out of that "public domain".

Not having specific things known, it seems to me, makes communication impossible - for some reason.

Joe