Taking money from people by threat of force and giving it to others. Threatening to use force against someone for not paying a certain wage.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
Yes, I am well versed in the text of the constitution. You asked how those policies are an initiation of aggression, and I told you. They are the taking of money from people by threat of force and giving it to others.
No, I think we should follow it. However, since everything the state does is done via the initiation of aggression, I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything it does and establishing the rules (i.e. laws) that would a) eliminate government initiations of aggression where we can and b) hold people accountable (via criminal or civil avenues) for harms they cause to the person or property of others.
A state without a police force or a judiciary that can put people in jail for crimes. Sounds like a utopia.
Where did I suggest a state without a police force or a judiciary that can put people in jail for crimes?
Can someone tell me how this is ok? http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076
Police initiate force and so does the judiciary. - - - Updated - - - "WASHINGTON—As the federal government was wrapping up its antitrust investigation of Google Inc., company executives had a flurry of meetings with top officials at the White House and Federal Trade Commission, the agency running the probe." What is surprising to you about it?
Okay, and where did I suggest a state without a police force or a judiciary that can put people in jail for crimes?
Actually, I don't want it (or anyone) to initiate aggression. Since everything the state does is done via the initiation of aggression, I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything it does and establishing the rules (i.e. laws) that would a) eliminate government initiations of aggression where we can and b) hold people accountable (via criminal or civil avenues) for harms they cause to the person or property of others.
So what rules are you talking about? In your utopia, do police and the judicial system have the power to initiate force to enforce laws or not?
Why did you dodge the question? In your utopia, do police and the judicial system have the power to initiate force to enforce laws or not?
I haven't proposed a utopia. I said that I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything it does and establishing the rules (i.e. laws) that would a) eliminate government initiations of aggression where we can and b) hold people accountable (via criminal or civil avenues) for harms they cause to the person or property of others.
I understand. But that is meaningless. I'm asking you a simple question about your proposed system. And once again, you dodge and can't answer the simplest questions about it. For reasons that are patently obvious.
the State cannot exist without the Individual, however, the Individual will exist without the State......
Good Quote.. reminds me of these: We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." ~Hillary Clinton The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself. ~Saul Alinsky "Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." ~Nikita Khrushchev BTW, i recognized the OP quote immediately. But of course, the source is not the issue, but the content of the quote. This is contrary to the American ideal of individual liberty, opportunity, & responsibility. This is a state centered ideology, that depends on mandates & control.
Ok, i'll say it... even though it is almost a cliche.. It was Hitler. But when you compare what he said with hillary, alinsky, & khrushchev, they are almost the same thing, content wise. It might seem like a smear by association, since it is universally considered that everything hitler said was a lie, but he had ideals, & promoted them with logic & emotion. That these ideals are still in vogue does not mean an allegiance to hitler, but it should make one reflect on the ideological company they keep.
Exactly my point. Big statist govt always always always goes bad. Dictators, communism, Fascism, nation bankrupting socialism. It's all the same and it's all Leftist ideology. Nothing is free. Ever. If you got it, someone else paid for it, and you owe everything right down to your soul when it comes from govt. You are owned; your freedom, your property, everything.
