Search results

Sure. I think you've lost the specific point you were trying to make though.

No. Governments control territory. They protect and enrich which enables the luxuries you so enjoy but love to feign hate for. Why do you stay in a place you hate so much when you have the freedom to revoke your citizenship and leave? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite with contradicting beliefs?

They shouldn't be. If they join the system by explicit action then they have consented.

So should employers refuse to cover blood transfusions or other emergency procedures because they don't believe in it? Where does it end? Why does the employer have the right to force their beleifs on their employees? You have a point, it makes sense, but it is cruel and petty. The solution to...

Too vague. What are you talking about? Why can't you just be direct?

It isn't being assumed. If you never affirmed it in any way, including explicit action, then for all purposes you are not a citizen and the US government couldn't care less about what you do outside of their system.

What are you using as the indicator for that claim? Public education or ?

*thumbs up* I think your gubment edumacation done did just firn!

Absolutely yes. I'll say it again: they had the freedom to leave, they still do, yet they choose to stay voluntarily. No person is forced to be a citizen.

Have you ever considered maybe you are ignoring arguments that support our current banking and monetary systems? Lay out your problem with the banking system.

Or just the cost of doing business for something we all inherently share and rightfully have a say in aka common goods.

Desperate and douchy.

Disingenuous. The parents didn't decide to be slaves. Slavery is inherently immoral. Try again.

Depends. Is the self-determination reasonable? Does it cause injury to another person or the population as a whole? If it is the self-determination to infringe on another's liberty to say, have affordable access to birth control, then I would say that is unreasonable and injures the well-being...

Then you must be collectivist as you blame every problem on progressives. It is a core tenant of the right to be hypocrites that use false equivalencies and revisionist history. Was that your attempt at debating fairly? Weren't you just accusing me of attributing anything I dislike as the fault...

The political movement is only partially inherently collective (democracy). You are right it is far from absolute collectivism aka socialism/communism/fascism.

Where did you get that from? Grasping much? You don't have to petition the government to revoke citizenship, at least in the US. They could give fuck all if you want to give up your citizenship and the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go with it. Stop pretending to be oppressed.

True, I was only using extreme libertarianism to make a more stark contrast. Minarchy is closer but still doesn't fully align with the power enumerated in the Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution outlaws treason. They may have believed the right to rebel against tyranny was self-evident, but they made it illegal to threaten the government they set up. They also gave the 3 branches of government the power to limit freedom. Without a government in a...

Liberty is a core principle of both liberal theory and libertarian theory, but I think the classical liberal theory employed by the founding fathers resulted in a system that balanced liberty with limited freedom, whereas a libertarian system would uncheck liberty aka absolute freedom or anarchy...