Tab Content
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Today, 01:41 AM
    Of course, acting on that right is quite another thing. Only worthy men can be free men. That means being about it instead of just talking about it.
    22 replies | 434 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:17 PM
    Yes, I know. But what makes your state any different? In neither state is the scenario precluded from happening. This was my point. Alright, undergroundrr. I'm out. I owe ya a rep.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:16 PM
    My final word on it is this. You should be free to get together and be self reliant without asking for anything from anybody. If you've rejected the use of force, I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this so long as you've rejected the use of force. To repeat, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. They will come in with guns and they will kill you. So think about that. Unfortunately, I think that most people who tend to talk about it would more likely be inclined to sit at home and watch it play out on television rather than to actually take part in and lead in what they promote that others should do. Have at it, though. I choose to support electoral politics and the constitution. I choose a Republic if I can keep it. That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my God-given rights to life and liberty.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:12 PM
    Ha. Nope. Because we're still left with the question of whether what is voluntary is also ethical. Which takes us full circle back to the fact that they're merely trading one state for another state. Again, consider the rule that the ancaps are inserting that presupposes that whoever owns the land can impose any laws on anyone who he contracts to work or live on his land. This is the very definition of a state. So. Now we get back to natural, God-given, rights. Remember in the thread when I asked if a propertyy owner had the right to knock a man off of his pole who was hanging on for dear life? Well, they claimed that the property owner had the right to murder the guy. WTF? Ayway. I'm bailing out of this thread, undergroundrr. I do appreciate your contribution to the thread, though. Hopefully you'll rub off on some of these cats. They can't debate it right. They really are misrepresenting anarchism. And if any young person ever comes here looking to learn about anarchism, I do hope that they don't learn it from these guys.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:52 PM
    On that note, I'm giving you guys back the thread. I'm just bored with it at this point. Report back whenever you guys turn in your licenses and registrations, opt out of the IRS, and walk into your local police stations to flip them off. Don't talk about it. Be about it. Until then, none of you can be taken seriously.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:45 PM
    It's only ridiculous nonsense because your group observably hasn't thought your own argument through all the way. You all obervably do not understand the shorcomings in your own arguments. The dialogue in the thread speaks for itself. Comparable to the old analogy about playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon, no matter how bad he gets whipped, is going to strut around the board and crap on it like he won. You guys have basically proven yourself to be pigeons.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:41 PM
    No. Because what is consensual is necessarily voluntary. The question is whether what is voluntary is necessarily consensual because you asked whether the contract was signed under compulsion. You see?
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:37 PM
    It's not a philosophical argument. Operational definition is in no way semantic.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:31 PM
    No, it hasn't. If you think it has, then, point me to it. All anyone in the thread has attmpted is to redefine. Unsuccessfully, I'd add. What you people are doing is leading astray any young person who is actually interested in learning about real anarchism.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:11 AM
    New Santa Cruz album...
    4463 replies | 218110 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:22 AM
    Well, shoot em a line while they're up your way and let em know their uninstaller needs fixed, Lamp.
    7 replies | 268 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:52 AM
    I tried it to see what the hype was about but I uninstalled it after 30 minutes. Its a kid's browser in my view. Though, it did load web page images as placeholders so I guess that's why they claim the page itself loads faster. The ad replacement policy is interesting. It kind of reminds me of why I never joined facebook. I remember when all of the mainstream talking heads (publishers, as it were) popularized it in synergy when it first came out. I said, nope, I'm not doing facebook I see where this is going. lol. Anyway, one other noteworthy thing is that it left quite a bit clutter after uninstalling, too. Its unistaller isn't very thorough. Obviously poory written. I had to manually go through my file system and registry to clean up all of the junk it left behind. It installs some other stuff along with the browser, too. Which wasn't apparent until I was cleaning up its leftover mess. ;) To each their own, I suppose.
    7 replies | 268 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:07 AM
    TODAY I WILL SPEND 500 FRN ON 1000 THINGS. TOMORROW 1000 THINGS WILL BE 5000 FRN.
    1995 replies | 74662 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:55 AM
    Arbitrators. Sheesh. Where have I heard that before...
    69 replies | 7169 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:19 AM
    That's a lot of work for one person, Shiff. Stay safe.
    18 replies | 1068 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:47 AM
    MAESTROS ARE GOING FOR 48 FRN. THE MENDINI GOES FOR 69 WITH A CASE.
    1995 replies | 74662 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:17 AM
    lol. Okay, Ragin, that was funny.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 10:36 PM
    I can't take you seriously, man. You may go.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 10:24 PM
    Okay, undergroundrr. You're slide stepping. otherone tried that very same thing on the last page and I had to reassemble that discussion in order to force him back on topic. So, let us reassemble our dialogue, undergroundrr. Now. undergroundrr, you left off in our discussion asking whether the contract was signed under compulsion. Did you not? Let's continue. I said that I don't know, you tell me. Though, I offered that the means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion was to first consider and conclude whether what is consentual is necessarily voluntary. And if so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? This is how one defines compulsion in direct context with your question. You see? This is what I mean throughout the thread when I state that operational definition is necessary if one would attept to make an ideal applicable in any society.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 03:44 PM
    I disagree. The dilemma exists in application. Though, one may certainly hyphenate any set of isms verbally if it suits one's whim. For instance, libertarian-communism. See? I can say it. But how do I make them appicable as an Indivisible whole in the company of my peers who understand them to be no more than two contrary nouns combined to create a formal fallacy? They're directly contrary isms in fundamental principle. The only way you can make them applicable as an Indivisible whole is to redefine one or the other or both for the purpose of creating the illusion of applicability. Which is precisely what you guys are trying to do by redefining fundamental Anarchism to suit your whim and then hyphenating it with capitalism. It's intellectual dishonesty and of the most obtuse magnitude. It won't work, though, because we can easily go 50 pages. Anarchy = No Ruler. Thus, no rules. No hierarchy
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 03:40 PM
    You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? I asked the question early on in the thread. Though, like my other quesions, it went completely ignored. Additionally, and more critically, is whatever is voluntary also ethical? For instance, earlier in the thread and elsewhere on the forum, I've seen the idea tossed out there of rule by landlord. That the property owner determined one's rights. Meaning that whomever owns the land can impose whatever laws he wishes on anyone who works or lives within his land. Is this not the very nature of a state? If not, then, why not?
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 02:31 PM
    zactly. I owe ya a rep.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
  • Natural Citizen's Avatar
    10-21-2017, 02:22 PM
    22 pages. lol. And all because somebody asked should libertarians support anarcho-capitalism. 22 pages. And the op hasn't even been back. That's the funny part. I think he just dropped a grenade for the fun of it. He's probly laughing at us. I'm gonna get ready for work. Screw you guys. lolol.
    704 replies | 9202 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
16,427
Posts Per Day
7.80
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
8
Most Recent Message
05-07-2017 08:04 AM
General Information
Join Date
01-16-2012
Referrals
1