tjx

If it didn't claim ownership over you, there wouldn't be anything to evade. These claims are incompatible. i didn't say there wasn't anything to evade. i asked where in the constitution it claims ownership of you. Just to be clear, you said this as a direct reply to it being pointed out that if it's willful, it doesn't need to be violently imposed. and just to be clear, i am pointing out that you can't choose what you're born into, but at least you could leave the good ole USA if you wanted to, back in the old days. are you still living in the USA? i'm not. i left because of the growing police state. i left while you can still get out. So you can force everyone into contracts as long as you do it when they are born? you can still leave. what contract were forced to sign? obamacare maybe? Could you renounce your citizenship without leaving? If you could not then you were not allowed to own land and thus others owned you, if you could then there was no need for the constitution. renounce citizenship in any country and you have to leave. you have to be a citizen of a country to live there and be afforded the benefits of living there. and you'll find out how quickly you need a country if you have none. "Well X was pretty nice to his slaves, who would you have rather had as your slave-owner X or somebody else?" Would you consider that a relevant statement about the morality of slavery? same question over and over.. where does the constitution claim ownership of its citizens. You mean like when people come together to invest in or create an enterprise? you mean like when they are safe enough under the protection of law to be able to create an enterprise?

i don't know how old you are, but you sound relatively young. don't take this the wrong way, but you are too concerned with yourself. socrates famously said "the unexamined life isn't worth living". but i think he was wrong. j. krishnamurti said "self examination always leads to depression". it's been my experience that he was right. i went through something similar (i think) to what you're going through. here's another thing from krishnamurti. someone asked him if he was happy. he told them that he doesn't think about it. he ask if you've ever noticed that when you're happy, that as you notice it, it immediately goes away. what you're going through is very hard. some people don't make it through it. concerned you're self with your work. get your mind off yourself. i once talked with a guy that was hospitalized for clinical depression. when he got out, he said he wasn't helped. he thought of suicide just as often. then one day, he said in order to keep from bringing everyone down at work, he was going to pretend he was happy, just for them. everyday at work he pretended he was happy. when he got off work, he reverted to depression. but he kept doing it everyday, so he didn't depress fellow workers. then one day, it began to change. he noticed that he was starting to actually be happier little by little when he was pretending to be happy. just something to think about. learn not to be so concerned with or about yourself.

OK, so are if I were begging for it I'd willfully agree to it and there would be no need to impose it upon me. you can't agree to anything when you're born. and you have to be born somewhere. people have always come together for common defense whether a tribe or a country. but if you were lucky enough to have been born in the USA a hundred years ago, you could have left any time you chose. you could have freely renounced your citizenship. no one would be imposing it on you if you didn't want it. Not to mention that this claim does not address the fact that the constitution is a tool to claim ownership over people living in a geographical area. where in the constitution does it claim 'ownership' over you? all it says is that you're a citizen with the protected personal and property rights of the country. if you didn't like the country, you could leave at any time and renounce your citizenship. yes, it's different now, but that's not the fault of the constitution. it's the fault of socialist ideology that has been sweeping the country. This is totally irrelevant and subjective. yes, it's subjective. where would you have rather been born a hundred years ago? why do you say it's irrelevant? if there is a group of people living somewhere and there is no government, they will come together in some fashion to form the rules they agree to live by. but rest assured they will come together if for no other reason than for common defense. the ones who don't will get wiped out by some kind of raiding party or army. the only way out would be to live in an area so remote that there are no people living anywhere near you. spontaneous order doesn't last long when under attack.

I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is. if you had lived in a land that was constantly plundered and overrun by foreign armies, you'd be begging for a constitution that protected your life, liberties, rights and property. you couldn't have found a place on earth that was as good to live as the USA a hundred years ago..

If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help. i'm not trying to force a solution. i'm just saying that not helping when you are able to help, is violating the person being raped. In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants. but the US constitution never claimed ownership over its inhabitants. just the opposite. people were free to leave any time they wished. not only that, they could take all their property with them. back then, the government wasn't allowed to limit anything you decided to bring with you. you can't leave with more than $600,000 without the government taxing you. Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent. i'm saying that measured aggression against violence, isn't violence. yes, semantics is a problem when we're striving to be accurate in our definitions.

Magnus, services would not exist without production. that's because without production nothing can be paid for. and it doesn't matter that the buyer never meets the maker. without production we would not just suffer, but die. even the cavemen had to produce. they made spears and animal hides. the food they harvested was also part of what they produced. and although they mostly consumed their own production, they probably enhanced their 'wealth' and increased their 'standard of living' which increased their chances to survive, by trading their excess production. their excess production was their currency of the time.

it isn't. what improves the quality of life is production. the more production we have, the better and easier life becomes. automation is a great way to increase production.

I don't debate relativists, you didn't debate anything. much like leftists, feminists or creationists. cop out. And I recommend that to the whole board for what it's worth. not much.

but i do know an absolutist when i see one. why don't you take the political quiz and see where you stand? bet you're further to the left than you think.

evidently you don't.

i'm the farthest thing from leftist you've ever seen. ad hominem all ya got? here's political spectrum quiz. we're on the honor policy, but i'll bet you nearly any amount that i'm to right of where you are. i have my score posted on another website. it's just a few minutes. take it and tell me what you scored and i'll tell you my score. i guess you don't know a leftist when you see one. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

In the past it was very hard to produce much more than you needed to sustain yourself and your family, as technology advanced that became easier and now it is possible to live in great luxury that wasn't afforded to the wealthiest people 100 years ago.If you simply want to sustain yourself you could probably get by only working 10 hours a month.In the future there will be better technology, and perhaps you'll be able to sustain yourself on 1 hour of work a month, and looking far into the future 1 hour of work a year... you show a deep understanding of economics. automation has been mankind's greatest boon and will continue to be, as long as we don't let socialism overwhelm us. in addition to all you've said, automation adds to the value of the dollar, since it makes things cheaper. of course other things like taxation and over regulation reduce the value of the dollar. so it's a constant tug-of-war between value and devalue. the stronger a nation's economy is, the stronger their currency is. they go hand in hand.

For instance, if I were tied to a post and watched my wife being raped. There is nothing I can do. if there's nothing you can do, then you're not being violent by doing nothing. Violence requires either some physical attack or restraint. i say it requires neither. Stop confusing good dictionary termas please. the dictionary is under constant revision. not only are new words added, but old words get revised with better definitions. violence needs a better definition.

i believe i can describe the start of evil. but it requires the definition of a few words that must be agreed upon first. that's why i'm in an argument with other posters about the definition of violence. violence is the most important word to be defined. without an accurate definition of violence, the start of evil can't be understood, or at least it will be misunderstood. it looks like it will be very difficult to agree on a definition of violence. a definition is like a boundary. it must include everything that the defined is, and at the same time, exclude everything that it is not. is there an accurate definition of violence that we could all agree on? probably not..