<p>…not going there</p>
<p>So don’t make the attacks if you’re not willing to back them up. Ironically, you (the one who accused me of ad hominem attacks) are the one making the ad hominem attacks.</p>
<p>"I’m completely uninterested in this topic, BTW, but am just saying I think your debating style needs much work."p3t</p>
<p>A lot of kids and adults need work with their debating style. Frequently a lack of debating style is due to a lack of information, more than anything else. Or, a kid is just acting like a kid. One has acknowledged he is in HS and he has engaged in Ron Paul debates, I am sure, using similar techniques.</p>
<p>I am interested in this topic, and if somebody wants to go back to my post#117 with a credible response, I’d appreciate it.</p>
<p>@rubio</p>
<p>I was deluded at the time for supporting Ron Paul. I can only apologize for my false preachings of that past, nothing more. But now, I give plenty of my arguments evidence instead of taking things for granted (e.g. I used to be anti-immigration).</p>
<p>Also, if you didn’t know already, I responded to post #117 in post #118.</p>
<p>“I hope you don’t abuse your children…” ??</p>
<p>What kind of way is that to conduct an intellectual debate of ideas or political philosophies."</p>
<p>I think Rubio is right in that this is a kid being a kid. I, for one, don’t have patience for rude kids when I’m intentionally seeking out a forum for parents.</p>
<p>Post 125 sums it up well. I for one welcome thoughtful, well reasoned postings from students, in PF, but the recent series of erratically & illogically meandering responses to this topic, by said poster, are not in that category of productive dialogue.</p>
<p>I don’t even mind redirecting faulty premises toward a mutually agreeable set of premises. What I mind is ignorance --a profound lack of education & disinterest in becoming informed, whether it is on AA, immigration, foreign policy, politics, etc.</p>
<p>I’m done with engaging this particular poster.</p>
<p>@zoosermom</p>
<p>You have been selectively quoting me. If you read the rest of that sentence, you would see that you would agree with me that lying to a kid is a form of abuse.</p>
<p>“I don’t even mind redirecting faulty premises toward a mutually agreeable set of premises. What I mind is ignorance --a profound lack of education & disinterest in becoming informed, whether it is on AA, immigration, foreign policy, politics, etc.”</p>
<p>Please do so. I have yet to see anybody tackle sovereingty. If you accept sovereignty, then logically I can call your home mine and you should be fine with that since all governemnts do to claim sovereignty is claim somethign is their’s. Reductio ad absurdum.</p>
<p>Once again, here is an article to disprove any notion of sovereignty:
<a href=“http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp[/url]”>http://blog.mises.org/archives/002502.asp</a></p>
<p>Will anybody who is willing to seek truth in a debate please address my points?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finally! When there is not even the least common ground upon which two individuals can agree, debate is futility most extreme.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your argument against sovreignty goes out the window because the article you linked to bolster the argument asserts that purchases made by the gov’t are illlegitimate because they are purchased w/ “stolen money” (i.e. taxes). Taxes are not “stolen money”. Some could suggest that taxes are paid willingly when coupled with the belief that the $$ goes toward strengthening the country/state/union/nation and/or upholding The Constitution. </p>
<p>You see, some of us who have “signed on” to be “Americans” (which is something you feel in your heart besides being one’s “citizenship”) realize that to claim the honor of BEING an American sometimes means to sacrifice. </p>
<p>I’ts not always about what my country can do for me. </p>
<p>We, as Americans, are bound by our belief that it is our UNITY that makes us a “sovreign nation” - and we are united by the things we do to strengthen our nation - sometimes that means paying taxes so " we" can handle the tasks of:</p>
<p>“form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.</p>
<p>Further, a “sovreign nation” does not exist on paper; it is not a “government”, nor is it merely the land and territory occupied within the geographical coordinates of its so-called boundaries. It is all these things together, but most of all, it is the PEOPLE who, collectively & individually, put their hands over their hearts and pledge allegiance to ONE NATION.</p>
<p>The beauty of America - OUR Nation, and what makes it the greatest nation on Earth is that, as citizens, our allegiance to our country does not have to supercede our in alienable rights as individuals (endowed by our Creator, BTW).</p>
<p>And guess what, if you don’t want to be an American, if you don’t want to pledge allegiance to our flag, if you don’t want to defend her, if you don’t want to pay taxes, then you are FREE to go elsewhere and become a citizen of some other place.</p>
<p>Go ahead, I challenge you to find somewhere better to live.</p>
<p>I gladly pay my share of taxes if it means that America is better & stronger & well-defended.<br>
That is the least I can do, considering some are paying with their lives.</p>
<p>bz, it’s futile, I tell you. You may as well talk to a brick wall.;)</p>
<p>That’s ok - ph. I knew that (as I’ve said, I think this “drive by” poster has been on here previously by another user name). </p>
<p>But I said what I wanted to say - even if no one were reading.</p>
<p>'s cool.</p>
<p>@bz2010</p>
<p>I think this article is particularly relevant since you bring up a lot of the same false arguments which are disproven in this article:</p>
<p>[A</a> Handout for Statists](<a href=“http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html]A”>A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty)</p>
<p>I’ll quote some of what you said and then proceed to give the relevant portion of that article as a rebuttal:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract – and I have never agreed to a “social contract” of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?”</p>
<p>Still, you are not addressing at a fundamental level how people can come to own property. If your argument for sovereignty is that people can come together and decide on ownership, then 9 people stealing from 1 man must be okay as well?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Can I justly create a “social contract” that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood – and say that if people continue to live in “my” neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?”</p>
<p>P.S. I am still waiting for that apology.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060134845-post105.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060134845-post105.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am choosing to be an American. I’m not forcing (or even asking) you to choose to be one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And those services are being financed how??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Might even be called a fiduciary relationship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if you live in a nation of laws.</p>
<p>@bz2010
“I am choosing to be an American. I’m not forcing (or even asking) you to choose to be one.”</p>
<p>You support the system of taxation which forces me to abide to a “contract” I never signed (hint: it’s not a contract).</p>
<p>“And those services are being financed how??”</p>
<p>Through taxes, which are extracted by force. What was the point of this question?</p>
<p>“Yes. Might even be called a fiduciary relationship.”</p>
<p>Wow…that’s all I can really say to this. You think all slaves who ate meals from their masters condoned slavery…</p>
<p>@bz2010</p>
<p>“Not if you live in a nation of laws.”</p>
<p>What is that supposed to mean? You keep abstracting things to disguise the use of force. A “law” in its current form is just an arbitrary preference of a few individuals imposed on others with the threat of violence.</p>
<p>The social contract is no different from the man robbing people in his neighborhood without their consent.</p>
<p>I’m not real crazy about our SYSTEM of taxation, but I’m willing to contribute to the success of America & I have to work within the parameters of the system currently in place. </p>
<p>If you don’t want to do your part to contribute to the success of America, go live somewhere else.</p>
<p>Re: slavery - I’m saying that those slaves who accepted livlihood from their masters were accepting the terms of the relationship at that time. </p>
<p>Besides that, most people with common sense realize you don’t get something for nothing - I pay taxes so I can enjoy the benefits of being an American & living in this country. </p>
<p>I usually pay for the meals I eat too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if the law is enacted through the actions of a representative government.</p>
<p>“I’m not real crazy about our SYSTEM of taxation, but I’m willing to contribute to the success of America & I have to work within the parameters of the system currently in place.”</p>
<p>Yet you still maintain that taxes are not coercive? When did I agree to be taxed? See the article I linked to for a run0-down of the argument.</p>
<p>Your response to that would be “afruff23 uses government services”. But once again I say that the meal-eating slave uses plantation-owner-services and he is obviously not agreeing to the relationship.</p>
<p>“Re: slavery - I’m saying that those slaves who accepted livlihood from their masters were accepting the terms of the relationship at that time.”</p>
<p>No they were not. They were simply doing what they needed to survive and live the best life they could under a constant threat of violence just as I am doing what I need to survive (eating tax-funded subsidized corn) and living the best life that I can (driving on tax-funded government roads rather than teleporting place-to-place or staying indoors at all times).</p>
<p>If the master-slave relationship was voluntary under that instance (slave eating a meal from his master), then I guess slavery was not immoral and you would have zero qualms about it if it existed in the USA today?</p>
<p>“Not if the law is enacted through the actions of a representative government.”</p>
<p>Seriously, just read the article. Here it is again:
[A</a> Handout for Statists](<a href=“http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html]A”>A Handout for Statists | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty)</p>
<p>Here is the rebuttal to that:
“Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.”</p>