No, I made it pretty clear there that they were less important. Not quite sure how you missed that.

You're joking, right? So when they were "apprehended" they could have just run away if they wanted to?

In the fact that you didn't move. You don't really think America is the most free country there is, do you?

I must say, you almost had me there, until he said:

Better luck next time. If only the anarchists could learn to work together!

[quote]
You realize that the government condoned slaver at one time, right? If forcing someone to deliver the fruits of their labor under the threat of force isn't slaver, then I don't know what is.

No it doesn't. I was never given a contract to sign.

By living here I know that if I break those laws that I will be acted against by men with guns. I don't condone it, but I prefer to not live in a concrete cage. Also, if you don't pay the fine what happens? How is it enforced?

evidence?

Living my life the way that I see fit while not infringing on the rights of others gives me one.

Perhaps you should have lobbied your congressman to regulate his bathing practices. Also, ad hominem.

You do realize I already said there is a threat of violence, right? I admit to that. It's part of enforcing laws. I even used the phrase "social chaos does not give me a boner". It was hilarious. Good times were had by all (with a sense of humor).

My statement is still valid, DUCY? Also, I don't feel the need to completely align my thoughts with others in order to feel correct.

If you're not okay with our rules, then you really should leave. That's part of the social contract of choosing to live in a civilized society. If you don't like our rules, you're very free to leave. If you think rule of law is BS, by all means, that actually IS one of the things I think a person should exit stage left for. (As opposed to the phony patriotic "if you don't like bush, get out!" rhetoric you'll hear on ultra-conservative radioshows and such)

I was saying you may still have had a point had he not proved what I was saying. That he would in fact prefer to leave because he doesn't enjoy living here.

You're completely ignoring that countries make it extremely difficult to come live there and become citizens. If I could just say pick up and move to Australia, I might well do so, but they're not too excited about people coming and living there if they don't like own a business or have some job skill they're getting employment with. There's also the fact that if people come onto your land and use force to make you do what they want, the proper response is to fight back, not run away.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the post to which you just responded. You said that me believing that the government has no right to force me to do stuff and believing that I have no right to force businesses to do stuff means that I don't value my freedom as highly as luxuries. How does that make sense?

"Love it or Leave it" OK comrade.

Threat of violence is violence.

True, I don't have a problem with retalitory violence, just with the initiation of violence. The problem is that almost everything (if not everything) the government does involves the initiation of violence.

Good try, but anyone with half a mind will see past that. Especially since I've included an example of "love it or leave it".

You're just embarassing yourself now.

No, here's how it works:

Violence = Violence
Threat of violence = Threat of violence

Do you see the difference there?

Also, I can't wait til all these posts are deleted since we completely highjacked this thread.

So if your neighbors come into your home and start breaking your stuff, since you don't like their rules, you really should leave.

Oh, so you don't want to take action and move because it'd be hard. Suddenly I don't feel so bad for not wanting to deal with all the BS that would come from sudden deregulation of all markets.

Swing and a miss. You live in America, America didn't invade you.

Semantically, yes. Morally and ethically, no.

You cannot have a decent political discussions without going off on tangents (or any discussion IMO, but it's worse with politics). Any board that is as iron-handed as you describe is a crappy, crappy board. This one isn't. If people are deliberately hijacking threads, they might get temp banned, but when it's the natural flow of conversation, it is what it is.

Ah, the old "you chose to live here" argument.

1. I didn't choose to live here. I live here because my parents had sex here.

2. People can't just pick up and move to another country whenever they feel like it. Other countries have laws restricting your ability to do that. Your argument is entirely dependent on the laws of other countries. And some people simply don't have the money to move. So what you're saying is that only people with the means to relocate to another country should have all the rights they believe they deserve.

3. Why should I just run away every time my rights are violated? I would rather stand up for myself and the rights of others who may not have the option of moving to another country.

Nice cherry picking. The primary reason I don't want to move is because running away from people who are violating you and have no right just encourages them to follow.

So? The government doesn't own the land, private individuals do. Unless you're saying there's no private property in America?

Thanks. You said that much better than I managed. I plead mild drunkenness.

So you're talking more about censorship? I'm not sure what the candidates stances on censorship are. I remember Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife) ranting about how the internet, TV, and movies need to be forced to stop using dirty words and show naked ladies, or something to that effect.

From the way John Edwards talks, it seems he would probably support strict regulation of internet content. He sounds like one of those "I'm here to save you from yourself" types.

you said:

I disagree with your statement on the same grounds that you disagree with the "if you don't like bush, get out!" argument. Both positions are advocating "love it or leave it". How then have I embarrassed myself?

You can't, like, own land, man.

Of course private individuals own their own land. And they chose to buy that land in America. America didn't choose them to live here.

I say this:

and you think I mean this:

He said.. she said.. la la la la... At this point like 1/3 of this thread is just anarchists and me bickering. As much as I love the sound of my own fingers tappity-tapping on the keyboard, I don't love it that much. And even more so given that this was a topic I was actually interested in. I don't like feeling like our argumentative crap will disuade others from answering/reading answers to Bedreviter's questions.

If you all want to keep attacking me in private messages, feel free to. I get the feeling Alex won't, since most of his arguments are fundamentally flawed and he could use all the help he can get from other anarchy friends.

I get the feeling Ron Burgundy would eventually best me, though his most recent post doesn't really do it for me.

You guys want anarchy in America, I don't. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.