tend - I didn't say I'd prefer to be shot walking down the street for the $40 in my pocket, but if you think your precious government can't turn violent and make your life miserable, then you need to read a few history books. You apparent lack of understanding how "benevolent dictator" lovingly caring for your needs can quickly becomes oppressive violence is just sad.

Crap man, already we are in a day and age where the government feels it is appropriate to try to decide the thoughts and "intentions" of people and enhance criminal punishment accordingly.

You punched that guy? OK....that's a 1 year jail sentence. Oh, wait...what? You said a "racist word" and punched him? That'll be 5-10 for you...

This is abhorrent violence.

That being said - if I lived in a world where I was going to be shot for the $40 in my pocket, I'd make danged sure I wasn't waling alone down a street unarmed with $40 in my pocket.

And if you are ill-informed enough to think you can walk anywhere in this country uprotected with $40 in your pocket, then come visit me -- I've got a few choice spots in Downtown Detroit, or maybe we'll take you to Chicago, and I'll lay odd on whether you make it through the night once I drop you off on a dark desolate street.

Your precious governemnt is here to clean up the mess - not protect you. Most protection starts at the LOCAL community level, not big daddy government.

I lived in Detroit itself through most of the 70s and some of the 80s, as such it is my baseline for normality. I am 100% sure I would still manage to find my way around. That said, although Detroit is an example of bad *everything*, I'm not sure it really contradicts my point that taxation is not the type of murderous theft that occurs in absolutely lawless areas.

Actually, Detroit is NOT an example of "bad everything" and I did not say that. And I didn't say you could "find your way around". I told you that I can take you to some specific places at, say, Midnight, drop you off on a street and I will read your obituary in the morning - period, and there is nothing Big Government can do about it, unless they are going to declare martial law and lock down the streets, or put a cop every fifty yards.

And my point is that taxation is but a SINGLE example of government violence. Fine, they don't put an iron shackle on my and whip me if I don't work hard enough - but they might as well. When you are taking 30,,,40,,,50% of my labor and giving it to others...under the threat of imprisonment? That pretty harsh...and the more you succeed, the more enslaved you become in that a higher % of your wages are confiscated *without question*.

I would just like to let you guys know that I was investigating a game yesterday and they were making fun of this thread in their global chat. It was pretty damn funny...

@bo_sox48

"I would just like to let you guys know that I was investigating a game yesterday and they were making fun of this thread"

Jesus Christ is there a gold medal for passive-aggressive gossip? YOU WIN, narrowly beating out "Everybody on the Cranleigh Hilltop Mall bus doesn't like you."

@krellin I agree it doesn't necessarily reduce violence - if it did there would be little way for revolutions or political changes to occur. It is the duty (often implicit, sometimes explicit) of a government to reduce violence, and if they fail in that charge there's little reason to keep it around.

Eh, I don't know if I beat that, tendmote.

Often times a good government starts out reducing violence, and then over time becomes the source of violence. Many see that today with the US government...for example, ask a cattle rancher that had Federal snipers surrounding his ranch as they stole his cattle if our government is violent...

Why do federal snipers steal cattle again?

Because the rancher hasn't been paying what he should have been legally paying. Also, he sort of declared himself and 'his' land independent or whatever, which actually allows the US to declare war on him and do whatever they want with his cattle. He said he didn't recognize the Federal government, was armed and making threats. Snipers were a reasonable precaution. That is, if we're talking about the racist, anti-US idiot I assume we are.

People dont want to be 'governed', people want to be organised. The Goverment, gets included for free :).

Steephie, did you got some lessens about Social Darwinism at Inleiding Filosofie this year ;) ?

@phil_a_s: "which actually allows the US to declare war on him"

Is that really true? US can just declare war on US citizens for reasons like that?
Didn't you guys have a constitution once? You know, the bit that's supposed to protect the people from the government?
I read about an American citizen once that was arguably unjustly branded terrorist (no real evidence shown but why would they if there was I suppose, hence arguably) and killed by a drone abroad, but declaring war on a presumably US citizen on presumably US soil seems even more fucked up. Not like it should matter what country someone is from IMO, but I suppose governments are often designed to be that way although that seriously sucks IMO.

And @Victorious: Nope, I only take useful classes. From my experience, letting your mind fly is best done outside a classroom IMO, or in class works too I suppose, but only if you DON'T pay attention. One could argue I'm a philosopher I suppose, but philosophy as a school-thing? I just sleep through that shit.I suppose it could be useful if you don't know where to start, but I've never been unable to find something to think about :-)
I do get Levensbeschouwelijke Vorming which is more religious-ish though. My summer holiday is almost done though, so I haven't had that for like 2 months maybe more :-)

Wow, that is an awful interpretation of the rancher issue - regardless of what side of the issue you are on. The issue is in regards to his cattle grazing on public property - which is legal in a designated grazing area after obtaining a permit and paying a fee. It never was in regards to his own property, and he never declared himself independent, and the US never declared war on him. In 1993 the federal BLM (bureau of land management) changed the grazing area that his family's cattle had been grazing on since the 1800s. His claim is that the grazing rights are owned by the state of Nevada and not the Federal BLM, so he doesn't have to comply with the new Federal BLM regulations\taxes since they are illegal. He also had a secondary claim that since his family's right existed before the BLM existed, his rights to the use the property extend back to the frontier day laws and therefore preempt the BLM regulations. The law in 1993 limiting the grazing rights of that area was due to the federal government building a conservation area for an endangered species, but the federal government began euthanizing them several years ago, and has since closed the conservation area.

The case ended up in federal court (as opposed to state court) and he the federal court sided with the federal BLM. After several court orders, he was warned that any illegal cattle trespassing onto the grazing area would result in confiscation of his cattle.

Steephie - the above interpretation of why the rancher had federal snipers taking his cattle is a rather ridiculously biased explanation, just an fyi. The story actually gos back probably over a hundred years and involves land his family had been grazing for that long....until slowly but surely the Feds came along and arbitrarily changed the rules and started demanding their pay. There is a reason the rancher doesn't recognize the Feds right to tax him involves questions of who actually owns the land,..the Feds or the State? Further, the Feds came up with some bogus bullshit about an endangered tortoise that his cattle were threatening. Really? So the cattle that had been grazing the land for 140 years are *suddenly* a threat to a tortoise?

Bottom line, if they wanted to deal with the citizen for his failure to pay taxes, they could have driven to his house with an arrest warrant and taken him away like they do for any other law-breaking citizen. The fact that The Feds choose to go the way of heavily armed Federal agents and seemed to be trying to push an open conflict which would result is bloodshed is pathetic, to say the least. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the ranchers stance on the land, the Federal Governments heavy handed approach to "solving" the problem was a massive demonstration of force...and how *anybody* can justify that behavior is beyond imagination. The irony is that so many "Liberals" - the same ones who are decrying the demonstration of police in Fergeson, MS over the rioting (actual violence by citizens!!) are the same ones who are defending the massive show of force against a cattle rancher who had committed no acts of violence. Tells you a little bit about the Liberals in this country (i.e. the cattle rancher for whom they praise the high use of force was a Republican...the citizens rioting in Ferguson are a "protected" minority to the Liberals who have carte blanche permission to violate the law)

That sounds about right from what I've heard, actually. I never claimed the US declared war, I said that based on what he said, he had renounced his US citizenship and refused to comply with US laws. If his argument to the press had been that the conservation area was stupid and void, then I would have agreed with him. Instead he spouted paranoid theories, at least when he wasn't advocating slavery.

Ignoring several court orders and having firearms in your house. This sounds like a reasonable justification to have a good amount of force ready when enforcing ignored court orders.

As for Awry's explanation above, it may be strictly accurate -- but many disagree with it for various reasons - most importantly because the rancher's claim goes backs to well before the Feds had a BLM, etc....

....which takes us full circle to the Government exercising violence over the people, right? So you and your family can do something that is perfectly legal and acceptable...and suddenly, one day, because some Federal agency springs into existence, the Feds can now come along and tax and threaten you over the same activity that was free and legal the day before....something as harmless as grazing cattle on otherwise unused land.

PHIL - Ignoring court orders is a reason to have a police car roll up to your house and arrest you -- not surround your land with snipers, threaten your family with violence, arrest reporters for reporting on the scene, etc.

Having guns in your house is legal, if they are legally owned and registered.

etc. etc etc. None of what you say is justification for the heavy-handed, heavily armed response of the Feds. Give me a break man..

He said a lot of things to reporters and others that made him a potential threat to a cop going to his house with an arrest warrant. Maybe the government was out of line on the charge, though the man made no attempt to appeal that, and maybe snipers was going a bit too far, but the government was actually justified in the show of force. If the snipers had shot the rancher without the rancher being a clear and present danger to the federal agents, then they would a lot further out of line.

By the way, house is one way to refer to it. I could also refer to it as an armed compound without being theoretically wrong. I would like to note that at no point did the feds use violence. Please point me to the articles about direct threats to his family, and arresting reporters. It is of moderate interest to me.

Steephie, about the gene discussion you brought up earlier, you need to take other things into consideration.

Sure, with the advancements in medicine people who would have normally died now live a normal life, which is great. You're saying that this allows our genes to sort of degrade, which might be true, but the answer is very simple - the same scientific advancements that got us here in the first place. I see the future as a place where you can order new limbs and organs, have nano bots travelling through your blood destroy cancer cells, and many things i can't even think of that will revolutionize our lives.