US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

You claim I have agreed to a contract. You can't produce any such contract with my signature. Therefore, your claim is disproved.

 

No, I showed you that you did.

strawman. I never claimed you signed anything. A signature is not required for a contract to be valid.

 

You still can't produce this contract you claim exists?

 

Popular sovereignty is a myth perpetuated by those who either wish to rule others or by those too afraid to rule themself.

 

Of course it is. And it's funny how they can never produce the document they claim you agreed to.

 

I'm sure they'll move to the myth of tacit consent soon.

 

They'll justify their violence to themselves however they can. Doesn't mean any of us have to buy their story.

 

I'm talking about it.

According to your logic, any Jew who resided in Germany and earned an income consented to whatever the Nazis did to them.

I expressly do not consent.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're inventing nonsensical, fallacious criteria for consent in order to foist a nonexistent contract on me. Honest people call that tyranny.

 

Consent is required. We expressly disclaim any consent. Ergo there is no contract. Pretty easy to understand.

 

A contract is a voluntary agreement between parties. No voluntary agreement, no contract.

 

I signed a contract obliging me to such rules??

 

Rahl's way around that is to invent his own magical criteria for consent that has no basis in logic or truth.

 

Violent people feel the need to justify their violence by whatever means they can.

 

Going forward, by responding to my, @Longshot or @Ethereal post that is consent you will pay us $100.00 in doing so.

See how that works?

 

Lol

 

Rahl has remained in this thread. That means he consents to be my slave forever.

 

Yes, it's all written down in the contract he never signed.

Oh, wait! Straw man. My bad.

 

Given all of the above it is patently obvious that you have never even read the Articles of Confederation or the history that explains why they were such a miserable failure.

Since the power resided in the states and the states refused to pay their taxes and the weak libertarian government had no power at all to collect taxes from the states the entire system collapsed.

That was why the Constitution EXPLICITLY grants the federal government the power to levy and COLLECT taxes.

Furthermore the asinine libertarian concept that the states had unlimited powers was ELIMINATED in the Constitution that REQUIRED that all states MUST be subordinated to the Federal Constitution.

In other words the failed libertarian utopia was REPLACED by a STRONG central government that became the SUPREME Law of the Land over the states.

The concept of free markets is NOT exclusive to libertarianism which negates that fallacy too.

The gobblydegook that comprised the Articles of Confederation was so appalling that it accurately reflected the muddled "thinking" that libertarians have when it comes to establishing a working and functional government.

The most GLARING example was the abject failure to establish a functional legal system of courts and laws that would have the POWER to ensure that the Law of the Land was applied across all of the states. This dearth of comprehension as to what occurs when it does not exist is one of the root causes as to why no one takes libertarianism seriously.

Needless to say you were unable to provide a single example of any nation anywhere that uses a libertarian system of government. Even communism was more "successful" than libertarianism which say volumes.

 

Thank you for inadvertently providing a excellent example as to why libertarianism is an abject failure.

This same attitude is exactly why the libertarian Articles of Confederation were such a dismal disaster. Libertarians are under the delusion that they do not need to pay any taxes that they didn't like.

Realists like the Founding Fathers were ADULTS who UNDERSTOOD that without government there is only anarchy and that is what caused the failure of libertarianism.

 

You voluntarily pay your taxes ergo the social contract exists.

 

You still haven't convinced me that it's okay to initiate violence against peaceful people. I'll give you credit. You did use a lot of UPPER CASE words, but you argument is lacking.

 

Why do I voluntarily pay my taxes?

 

Because it is part of the social contract that you deny exists.

 

Can you show me the contract with my signature on it?