the propaganda to honesty dictionary

[tjx]

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. Just like going to McDonalds and buying a meal.

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.

 

This is totally irrelevant and subjective.

 

This is a great point.

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.

[dsayers]

you could have left any time you chose.

 

where in the constitution does it claim 'ownership' over you?

 

If it didn't claim ownership over you, there wouldn't be anything to evade. These claims are incompatible.

 

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.

 

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.

[alexqr1]

you can't agree to anything when you're born. and you have to be born somewhere.

So you can force everyone into contracts as long as you do it when they are born? 

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.

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. 

yes, it's subjective. where would you have rather been born a hundred years ago? why do you say it's irrelevant?

How does it relate to the question about the constitution being a tool to claim ownership over people?If we were discussing the morality of slavery and I made this argument:"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? 

but rest assured they will come together if for no other reason than for common defense.

You mean like when people come together to invest in or create an enterprise?

[tjx]

If it didn't claim ownership over you, there wouldn't be anything to evade. These claims are incompatible.

 

 

 

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.

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?

 

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.

 

 

How does it relate to the question about the constitution being a tool to claim ownership over people?

If we were discussing the morality of slavery and I made this argument:

 

"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?

 

 

 

 

You mean like when people come together to invest in or create an enterprise?

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?

[alexqr1]

renounce citizenship in any country and you have to leave.

OK then there is your answer.