Proud to be Un-American

[Agorism]

YouTube - Ron Paul : "Proud to be un-American" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I05JDxbamdM)

[Arion45]

It is difficult to make people see when they think they are free. 12 years of indoctrination at governmental schools can do that.

[Kludge]

It is difficult to make people see when they think they are free. 12 years of indoctrination at governmental schools can do that.

People don´t think they are free. When most people know something´s illegal, they´ll say they "can´t" do it.

They´ll use words like "oppression," "regulation," and "gun-point." There´s even a lot of folks here who do it!

Submission to government is wholly voluntary.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It is difficult to make people see when they think they are free. 12 years of indoctrination at governmental schools can do that.

If the problem was only getting people to see. No that is not the scope of the problem facing freedom.

Instilling hope and courage to not to be afraid of government is the true scope of the liberty problem.

Once people are longer afraid, they can no longer be effectively coerced.

[tremendoustie]

People don´t think they are free. When most people know something´s illegal, they´ll say they "can´t" do it.

They´ll use words like "oppression," "regulation," and "gun-point." There´s even a lot of folks here who do it!

Unfortunately, those who are aware of the situation are currently a minority.



Submission to government is wholly voluntary.

Yes, just like handing over your wallet to a mugger is voluntary. You get to choose to give it up or get your head blown off.

Strange definition of voluntary.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Strange definition of voluntary.

I will concede government distorts value judgments if you can concede a voluntary choice is made.

[Kludge]

Yes, just like handing over your wallet to a mugger is voluntary. You get to choose to give it up or get your head blown off.

Strange definition of voluntary.

Just about everything is voluntary. You´re free.

I´m getting away from Society. It´s my choice.


U.S. Government can go take a flying fuck at the moooon!

[tremendoustie]

I will concede government distorts value judgments if you can concede a voluntary choice is made.

The word voluntary is meaningless, if you use it this way. Actions taken under duress, including threat of imminent violence are not "voluntary". To manipulate the circumstances so a victim must choose obedience or death is to act coersively. The fact that a person could choose to die does not mean they have volunteered to obey.

You're misusing language.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The word voluntary is meaningless, if you use it this way. Actions taken under duress, including threat of imminent violence are not "voluntary". To manipulate the circumstances so a victim must choose obedience or death is to act coersively. The fact that a person could choose to die does not mean they have volunteered to obey.

You're misusing language.

Non Sequitur: It does not follow distorting a value judgment suspends the laws of nature and free will.

Let me add this for humor:

Peter, good job!
Thank you Lord.

Paul, good job!
Thank you Lord.

Judas...
I demand justice Lord, Satan coerced me!

[tremendoustie]

Non Sequitur: It does not follow distorting a value judgment suspends the laws of nature and free will.


The word "voluntary" does not concern the existence of free will, but is a description of actions taken in the absence of duress or coercion. The fact that Jews could have committed suicide instead, does not mean they entered concentration camps "voluntarily". A girl does not "consent" to sex or "volunteer" for it, when she's raped at gunpoint, because she could have resisted and gotten killed.

This is not what those words mean. Again, this is a misuse of the language.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The word "voluntary" does not concern the existence of free will, but is a description of actions taken in the absence of duress or coercion. The fact that Jews could have committed suicide instead, does not mean they entered concentration camps "voluntarily". A girl does not "consent" to sex or "volunteer" for it, when she's raped at gunpoint, because she could have resisted and gotten killed.

This is not what those words mean. Again, this is a misuse of the language.

Which dictionary are you using? In your examples the girl and Jews both volunteered to comply with demands of aggressors.

Today's headline:

David Letterman... NOT ACTING VOLUNTARY

When he chose not to comply with alleged bribery demands. Apparently despite any personal risks involved Mr. Letterman involuntarily chose to immediately notify authorities because he is a government drone with no capacity for free will.

Elsewhere in today's news:

Judas.... NOT GUILTY VERDICT!

All of the Angels in Heaven were loudly rejoicing today when another previously thought condemned soul was reclaimed by the eternal flock. God ruled today Judas was not acting voluntarily because the high priests did not fully disclose the terms of the contract. Due to an obscure technicality on the books regarding de facto void legal obligations a miracle occurred in nature when the Son of Man was betrayed which temporarily suspended free will. God further elaborating in the ruling stated Satan was the primary conspirator due to his dominion over the earth. A soul warrant has been issued for Satan's arrest on fraud charges.

[tremendoustie]

Of course one is responsible for the choices one makes, even under duress. That does not mean one can refer to the actions taken under duress as "voluntary", or excuse the person who initiates the coercion.

You stated, "submission to government is voluntary". If you're wishing to express that one can choose not to obey government, consequences be darned, then I agree. If you're wishing to express that the violent threats used by government are somehow moral, or by consent, that's B.S.

I don't care to waste my time arguing semantics with you. If you want to call concentration camps and rape "voluntary", fine with me. You can call apples oranges for all I care.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Of course one is responsible for the choices one makes, even under duress. That does not mean one can refer to the actions taken under duress as "voluntary", or excuse the person who initiates the coercion.

You stated, "submission to government is voluntary". If you're wishing to express that one can choose not to obey government, consequences be darned, then I agree. If you're wishing to express that the violent threats used by government are somehow moral, or by consent, that's B.S.

I don't care to waste my time arguing semantics with you. If you want to call concentration camps and rape "voluntary", fine with me. You can call apples oranges for all I care.

Listen to what you are advocating. You are suggesting the word voluntary ought not be defined in the context of an individual but a group of people. Specifically a group of people engaged in some kind of action.

How can a term used to define individual action be collectively applied to free will actions of two or more people?

[tremendoustie]

Listen to what you are advocating. You are suggesting the word voluntary ought not be defined in the context of an individual but a group of people. Specifically a group of people engaged in some kind of action.


Huh? How on earth did you get that?



How can a term used to define individual action be collectively applied to free will actions of two or more people?

I'm saying actions taken when someone has a gun to your head are not considered voluntary.

How you got groups or collectivism out of this I have no idea, but I think this conversation is way past the point of usefulness, and is now semantic at best, so I'm going to sign off here. No hard feelings, I'm just not interested in recreational debate at the moment.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Huh? How on earth did you get that?

I'm saying actions taken when someone has a gun to your head are not considered voluntary.

How you got groups or collectivism out of this I have no idea, but I think this conversation is way past the point of usefulness, and is now semantic at best, so I'm going to sign off here. No hard feelings, I'm just not interested in recreational debate at the moment.

No it is not semantics. If there are two parties then the free will actions of both parties must be individually determined voluntary or involuntary.

Rape Scenario 1:
Woman demands justice claiming she was raped by man.
Man counter claims woman injured man poling one eye out.

Assuming both claims are true....
Woman voluntarily injured man
Woman was involuntarily raped

Rape Scenario 2:
Woman demands justice claiming she complied with demands of kidnapper. She further claims while held in captivity and bondage she was raped.

Assuming claim is true...
Woman was voluntarily kidnapped
Woman was involuntarily raped

This is how you use the term:
If a man rapes a woman, the man acted in aggression voluntarily and all actions of the woman are de facto involuntary.

I am not claiming consent or submission to aggression makes aggression moral and I am certain there is no disagreement between us on this point. But, if you are correct in your assertion I am misusing the term, we should find the term involuntary extensively used under definitions of slavery.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Accept responsibility for your own voluntary submissions. Stop blaming another party because you can not own up to the fact you voluntarily consent to demands of potential unwanted aggression. If you do not want to voluntarily consent to unwanted aggression choose to defend yourself. If you are facing a powerful aggressor rally a majority of force.

A slave may consent to being under the control of another human being. A free human being does not consent to being a slave. People expect their politicians not to kick the can of debt down to posterity. I expect free people not to kick the can of slavery down to posterity.

What does it mean to be eternally vigilant? I will tell you exactly what the magic fairy dust refers to. It means actively work to PRESERVE A MAJORITY OF FORCE FOR A BELIEF! The system of anarchy the world operates on is not complicated. It is not rocket science. The founding fathers understood it and why it was stated "if you can keep it". It is the simple truth democratic political process is not compatible with liberty. Democratic political process does not preserve a majority of force for liberty it only preserves a monopoly of force for government.

I find it extremely discouraging the Ron Paul Revolution has not had the common sense in three years to spearhead drafting a new Declaration of Independence articulating grievances that apply to 2010 and distribute this declaration far and wide to build a majority of force coalition. Virtually everything but support for the democratic political process has been dismissed or ostracized.

A declaration of belief is how you build a majority consensus. A clear concise articulation of grievances. Such a declaration does not have to state there is going to be war tomorrow or the solutions to all of the problems. It can simply call for building a majority of force to address the grievances and once achieved demonstrating the majority of force exists so peaceful revolution can occur. Only with a clear majority of force can a peaceful revolution occur. If a potential aggressor is not fully aware they are in a minority of force position would you expect said potential aggressor to submit or consent to your demands peacefully?

So yes, I take exception to perpetuating a logical fallacy of using the term voluntary in a way that condones excusing personal responsibility with regards to consenting to unwanted threats of aggression and condones kicking the can of slavery.

[osan]

Submission to government is wholly voluntary.

Utter nonsense. When choices with which people should not be faced are imposed upon them, compliance is not vcoluntary - though non-compliance is. Compliance with a demand when noncompliance is to be met with violence is not made voluntarily by any far stretch - it is made under duress. To equate the two is not even remotely reasonable.

[TC95]

Why are the necons in this video called "true Americans", but Ron Paul is un-American? I bet Ron Paul doesn't consider himself un-American. I doubt boatloads of people are gonna vote for a guy who's proud to be un-American. Stupid video. I gave it a thumbs down.

[Kludge]

Utter nonsense. When choices with which people should not be faced are imposed upon them, compliance is not vcoluntary - though non-compliance is. Compliance with a demand when noncompliance is to be met with violence is not made voluntarily by any far stretch - it is made under duress. To equate the two is not even remotely reasonable.

Duress is legal bullshit. Compliance with government mandates is voluntary. Anyone claiming their body is their property should set an example by taking full responsibility for their actions, whether or not they can sleep at night being "reasonably immoral" or "unreasonably moral." It´s obvious enough I don´t think I need to explain it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Duress is legal bullshit. Compliance with government mandates is voluntary. Anyone claiming their body is their property should set an example by taking full responsibility for their actions, whether or not they can sleep at night being "reasonably immoral" or "unreasonably moral." It´s obvious enough I don´t think I need to explain it.

True. To those who disagree read some Etienne de La Boetie, and Thoreau. Power rests on your support, which is wholly your decision. Rescind that support and the power structure topples. Do not feed the beast. Starve it.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Duress is legal bullshit. Compliance with government mandates is voluntary. Anyone claiming their body is their property should set an example by taking full responsibility for their actions, whether or not they can sleep at night being "reasonably immoral" or "unreasonably moral." It´s obvious enough I don´t think I need to explain it.


True. To those who disagree read some Etienne de La Boetie, and Thoreau. Power rests on your support, which is wholly your decision. Rescind that support and the power structure topples. Do not feed the beast. Starve it.

I wish you luck.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I wish you luck.

I wish you luck. You'll really, really need it seeing as if...how does the saying go:

If voting made any difference it would be illegal.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This is what happens when you rescind your support:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/95044099.html

You can not really be sure of your convictions until it is you that is staring down the barrel of a gun.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is what happens when you rescind your support:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/95044099.html

You can not really be sure of your convictions until it is you that is staring down the barrel of a gun.

I've been there before (and have been detained for refusing to support State dictats). Nothing is really going to change until people start to act on their convictions.

Give me liberty, or give me death.

[Kludge]

This is what happens when you rescind your support:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/95044099.html (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/95044099.html)

You can not really be sure of your convictions until it is you that is staring down the barrel of a gun.

Escaping the eyes of Society would be easier, I suspect. We´ll (not AED&I...) be posting updates of our own experiment every few months...