RE: Outcomes don't morally justify immoral actions.
Not sure the relevance of land masses and enclosures. Nations have borders which are on maps, and represent the lines of ownership and governance.
Paying for something does not mean you always own it in perpetuity. There is a whole subject of law concerning this, called Property. In fact software is going this route. Read the box when you buy Windows products. You don't actually own it.
The Declaration of Independence as well as the US Constitutions spells out the role of government (U.S.), which includes providing for a common defense.
We, the people created this government (U.S.) also in the Declaration and Constitution.
Government is a body, not an individual. Same as a corporation, which is a entity not a person.
You will be prosecuted if you do not fulfill your obligation to pay taxes. It is the price of being a citizen. If you give up citizenship, you no longer pay future taxes (still owe the back taxes though). Think of it as a contract.
The government protects and prosecutes harmful or unproductive entities. Same as the human body. Our bodies collectively protect itself and have mechanisms to destroy or evict harmful elements, including cells which go bad.
Yes, I believe my comments follow logic and yours are based upon open ended questions attempting to show contradiction without a point. I see them as a set of false-arguments or sometimes referred to as fallacies or false-logic (depending if you are a Logic major or follow the Argumentation educational path)
You use the word fallacies, but I am not confident you actually understand what that means. For reference I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies It is a good start.
I've written entire articles on Steemit disproving every claim that you just put forth.
I get it though. You have an axe to grind.
what a sophist punk. @ultimus
"Not sure the relevance of land masses and enclosures."
You are not sure because you are a fucking idiot. Yes, borders are on maps. Way to prove you graduated kindergarten. You are going to have to explain how imaginary lines represent "ownership and governance." though. Paying for something means that you own it the amount you agreed to before the transaction took place.
"There is a whole subject of law concerning this, called Property." You state this fucking nonsense then post a list of fallacies , yahokay . That's Argumentum ad baculum, dumbass.
What the fuck does a "body" consist of? If your fucking answer is individuals, you should probably go die in a fire.
"You will be prosecuted if you do not fulfill your obligation to pay taxes."
You mean I will be prosecuted if I don't submit to theft? I do not want any of the services provided by tax dollars. Not a single one. Why am I obligated to pay for services I do not want? If you move from the US and give up citizenship you still have to pay taxes for 10 years so you can shove that "move to somalia" shit right back in your asshole. There is no contract if there is no ability to withhold consent . I have never been offered the opportunity to withhold citizenship, therefore none of this bullshit is valid. "the government" forces people to pay them. that's it. all of the other shit they do is to protect their ability to force you to pay them. Your comments do not follow logic and are completely contradictory to the points you are attempting to make . The contradictions ARE the point, you mouth breathing moron. If your logic is so bad that it is filled with contradictions then maybe you are wrong and need to rethink your positions. Although I'm pretty sure you haven't even thought about them a first time, because you are stupid.
fuck you.
I am enjoying this thread! It is an opportunity for people to exchange opinions.
Unfortunately, it seems some are having difficulty expressing their thoughts in a constructive manner. Shame really, as belligerence detracts from the credibility of what could be interesting opinions and perspectives. I have an open mind. I am willing to listen and evaluate, without the prejudgment that I must be right. In fact, I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, when presented with a clear argument supported by substantive facts that have no counter.
I would argue, passions are running high for some and there is a lack of self control. Everyone is different. But let me state for the record, you won't hear me being belligerent, talking foul, or outright attempting to attack someone as a form or argument (Ad hominem). Just not productive. Truth and insight is a far better outcome.
For the record, I think everyone should have an opinion and at their discretion , voice it in a peaceful way. This is the nature of the 1st amendment (which I suppose is only relevant if you believe in the validity of the U.S. Government) and I believe everyone should take advantage of this right. So please, continue the conversation. I am interested in the logic you are working so hard to express. I can filter out you insults. Maybe there is something to learn.
Nope, we'll just hear you gaslighting by insisting that theft isn't theft. I'd take the ad-homs over your implied threats of physical violence, personally.