jpahmad

You can't eat a living human because in order to do so, you would have to violate the NAP (which is immoral) before doing so.

Here ya go.

Illegal immigrants = children?

So let me get this right. It is the stance in this thread that illegal immigrants are just innocent idiots that don't know that they are stealing anything. Is this correct?

Yeah, subsidies that I paid into as a taxpayer (whether willingly or not). So I'm just getting back what's rightfully mine by shopping there. This is much different than someone using government subsidized goods and services who did not pay any taxes (Illegal immigrants). You're "gotcha scenario" is a false equivalency.

The immigrants know they are here illegally. Every day they spend using public utilities, roads, education, whatever, is a day that they are stealing products and services from the Americans who are forced to pay for it.

If you give the money and I accept it. Then I am a thief.

To quote Milton Friedman : "The Government is People." The government is a conceptual entity that describes people who use force to get what they want. Get rid of those people and you get rid of the government. It's not the other way around.

So taxation is not theft?

Adam keeps stating that the problem is the "government" as if the the government is anything different than the people. No Adam, the problem is people; people who use the gun of the state to steal. I don't know why he doesn't get this. You stop importing thieves, you stop importing government!

He blew up an airport. So what.

So we should listen to you non-sense because you are "one degree of separation away form Bill Gates"?

Here ya go:

I had taught in that god awful system for 10 years before I made my escape. I've worked in 3 different cities and school districts. I'm confident that this analysis perfectly captures what goes on that institution. I'ts pretty damning and I certainly would lash out at whoever made this video if I still worked as a public school teacher. But the truth must come out.

Whatever dsayers. Have a merry Xmas.

So why don't you try actually responding to my post next.

Your post below form another thread on the same topic, implies that you don't there is a credible threat when it comes to political voting. jpahmad, on 18 Nov 2016 - 10:02 AM, said: If you don't empty the register, you might not immediately get shot. This does nothing to address the fact that there is a credible threat, nor that the emptying of the register is not voluntary because of it. You are grasping for ways to make your conclusion fit instead of being honest. Here is a quote from dsayer's article: "The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation." Dsayers has agreed that someone voting for a politician who can use the state to initiate force against my will is a credible threat. Thank you dsayers. In that case, you should not hold me morally accountable for using the tools available to defend myself against a credible threat. When under a state of coercion (credible threat as explained in your excerpt) I become an amoral agent. My amoral self, in the interest of preservation, chooses to use the tool of Donald J Trump. Whether is works or not doesn't matter.

This is the first time I have seen you use the term "credible threat" when referring to political voting. What's going on dsayers?

how do you know it "legitimizes" anything? Do you ask all of the people who vote how they feel about their vote and why they did it? Also, did you process anything I said in my previous post about "legitimizing"?

The funny thing is, is that you can't actually observe someone "legitimizing" something. It's not in the realm of observable behavior. And...(drum roll) since it is not in the realm of observable behavior, then it is not in the realm of ethics. The term "legitimize" must be linked to another verb in order to have any meaning. Just think about, if I called someone on the phone and told them that I was "legitimizing" something, they would have absolutely no idea what I was doing.

Here is that "road":

Lol. In politics, coercion is involved. There is no coercion to keep you engaging on the FDR forum.

dsayers, why do you continue to engage with people you deem to be involved in immoral activities? Don't you have more productive things to do?

I never said there wasn't a threat. I said that you could conceivably avoid the threat. Sure there is a threat. It goes like this: If you don't do everything you can to get this person elected (including voting) then this (insert one of many bad things) will happen to you.

You choose to participate in a system where you will be forced to give up a portion of your earned income. You don't have to participate. You can barter. You can live off the grid. You can get paid in cash and hide it under the bed like they do in India. etc.. There is always a choice.