If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So taxation is not consensual then.
Previously you stated that it could be implied that I agreed to taxation because I lived in a certain area. If I then act in a way that "subverts" the system do i then remove my consent?
Yes. It has no seperate existence.
All the way. Turning nouns back into verbs shows whats going on more often than not.
And so on.
Really, don't vote - it legitimises Killers, thieves and liars, conmen and crooks.
not really...underneath all the jibberish that's prevelant you've got some valid points...
2nd person plural...
Could you provide the factual details for that statement?
seeker
so i can tell what exactly is been added to the argument
plus he must rely on others, end of the day, hes using a phone line to connect to the net
Not for everyone, but those who dislike seem happy to reep it's benefits IME.
No I didn't. I said that because you take the benefits of the tax system, you consent to the tax system being there.
Neither does a tree, but that exists, non?
No it doesn't, it gives my implied consent to their actions. If I vote for the person who then carries out the acts you mention.
"Government" by the way it operates must steal, lie, and kill. No matter who gets in, who you vote for you are legitimising theft, murder and deceit.
I really cannot get my head around the assertion you make about taxation. Could you explain it a little further from me?
You seem to be stating that if the government tax all your money away and use some of it to buy you medicine, by using the medicine you have agreed to have all your money removed. Did I get this right?
I'm sorry, but how can you expect me to take you serious when you say things like that?
You go through a listing procedure to identify a "tree". But isn't it the case that you have a set of experiences that you are labelling as "tree" rather than there is a thing called "tree". By seeing a tree you are not seeing a branch, not seeing a forest. You missed the glade and the the leaf. It's not a thing in of and of itself it's a division of your total experience.
If it's a little hard for you to grasp the idea that language isn't experience, please move on to my more politically pertinent points.
trees exist got over it and remove whatever is clogging up your rectum
nothing you usually say seems to be relevant
Well, Mr. G
If you can't see the relevance of the arbitary nature of a country (the excuse for the death of millions and the continuing control of millions) or the importance of not voting because it legitimises killers, thieves and liars, perhaps you need to have a shufti at how you see the world.
Don't vote for them they are seeking legitimacy not for permission.
Money allows for easier trade, its hard to take 150 sheep to America and swap it for some grain, where as its much easier to take money.
Trade makes people richer.
Unless of course you would like us to go back to a time when there was next to no trade, we lived on our own farms and died at age 35.
We started using currency (as a race) in ancient babylonia. It's hardly the massive surge to the presnt day you are claiming it to be.
So you're saying we would still be as rich as we are now if we never used currency and always used barter?
But it's not the factual detail that seeker asked you for.
The fact that we had money for millienia before our current success must mean that it's not solely (or even partly) for -
We switched from bartering to money and carried on as normal for thousands of years. Nothing changed.
What was the first money, btw?