Connected Wages

[Vyrzaharak]

You've shifted goalposts in this very post.

Really, I haven't.

For example, you're about to tell me you don't believe in objective morality, then you're about to make an objectively moral statement.

I find that it's your own problem if you cannot identify and entertain multiple layers of thought, however contradictory they may seem.

If you don't believe in objective morality, then the golden rule is just a subjectively moral opinion...and you've given me no reason to consider it over my own opinions.

You should apologize (to yourself) for not asking for a reason, then. Here's a very simple reason: just because you like something, does not mean you like being forced into doing that activity. That if you like something, you obviously won't like someone else stopping you from that activity.

Your entire argument was about decisions which are being made for you which you did not consent to...your birth would fall under that. Are you now saying that there are situations which are morally good where decisions have been forced upon you without your explicit consent?

Nope.

And yet if I were to attack you and you killed me in self defense...you've done something to me which I didn't consent to (far worse than merely arresting me I might add)...are your actions not immoral?

You initiated the act, you affirmed the act as more valuable. I did not violate your morality by acting in accordance with your own activity. You don't consent? Then don't initiate the act.

Did the kid die or not? I'm curious how they tried to justify charges of "attempted murder" and "1st degree manslaughter" since the victim would need to be both dead and alive for both charges.

He didn't die.

It's pretty objectively defined...here's Georgia's legal definition of murder...

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON :: ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE :: § 16-5-1 - Murder; felony murder

Again, more importantly, the police in your state and city have a very specific set of conditions which define, procedurally, when they can and cannot shoot someone. These don't change from case to case...nor from situation to situation...nor person to person.
They couldn't get any more objective.

This is one of your goalpost shifts...did you want to talk about anecdotal experiences? Or procedures? Because the procedures are written for all police...irrespective of subjectivity.

You've not explained how it objectively defined a cop shooting someone for resisting arrest as being murder. In other words, it essentially uses the logic of defining a fish by calling it a fish.

That's funny...so no one in the history of the United States has had any influence or the ability to choose the laws and regulations of the nation? What's this mysterious non-personal entity which is guiding the direction of our nation then?

How about the fact that for over two hundred years, every federal election has been a race to the bottom? Nearly every vote has been a matter of who is less evil, or who has the better personality. Every president and congress has carried over the policies of their predecessors. Not even a decade of the United States' existence has gone by without being involved in war.

Moreover, that's not even my bigger issue with the system. Even if just anyone can influence it, why should I trust you to influence it the right way? Clearly, your advocacy of government on some level rests with the belief that some men can't be governed, yet somehow I should trust you? I could support democracy, if there was a guarantee every single individual was held responsible for their vote... like, say... require all congressional and presidential candidates to not simply serve in the military, but to actually serve on the front lines, in order to vote for war, then not only dissolve the anonymity of the voter database but kill a portion of those that voted for a president in proportion to the amount of soldiers killed in war. (Or some variation thereof.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope.

Yup.

I find that it's your own problem if you cannot identify and entertain multiple layers of thought.

When those "layers" are logical contradictions...then the problem is with your thoughts.

You should apologize for not asking for a reason, then. Here's a very simple reason: just because you like something, does not mean you like being forced into doing that activity.

How does that relate to the golden rule?

Nope.

Then if I were to try and steal your bicycle (since you sold your cars) and you were to use force to stop me...that would be immoral without my explicit consent? It was you who claimed force is immoral without consent.

You initiated the act, you affirmed the act as more valuable. I did not violate your morality by acting in accordance with your own activity. You don't want to consent to a fight? Don't initiate the fight.

You initiated an action by hiring an employee and paying them a wage. The government doesn't violate your morality by acting in accordance with your own activity. Don't consent to a minimum wage? Don't pay employees wages.

Goalpost shift in 3...2...1...

No, he didn't die.

What was the manslaughter charge about then?

You've not explained how it objectively defined a cop shooting someone for resisting arrest as being murder.

Murder is objectively defined regardless of the situations it occurs under.

The procedures which allow a cop to shoot or not shoot someone are likewise objectively defined.

Levels of resistance are likewise objectively defined.

How about the fact that for over two hundred years, every federal election has been a race to the bottom? Nearly every vote has been a matter of who is less evil, or who has the better personality. Every president and congress has carried over the policies of their predecessors. Not even a decade of the United States' existence has gone by without being involved in war.

All opinions...except for perhaps the last part, I'd need to look that up.

Moreover, that's not even my bigger issue with the system. Even if just anyone can influence it, why should I trust you to influence it the right way? Clearly, your advocacy of government on some level rests with the belief that some men can't be governed, yet somehow I should trust you? I could support democracy, if there was a guarantee every single individual was held responsible for their vote... like, say... require all congressional and presidential candidates to not simply serve in the military, but to actually serve on the frontlines, in order to vote for war, then not only dissolve the anonymity of the voter database but kill a portion of those that voted for a president in proportion to the amount of soldiers killed in war.

Your participation isn't required...I simply pointed out it's an option. An option many in this world don't have.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Alright Ana, I'll give you a very simple question to think over, before I return later.

What is the difference between a customer paying $1.99 for the production of a widget and a business owner hiring an employee to make a widget for the same price?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Alright Ana, I'll give you a very simple question to think over, before I return later.

What is the difference between a customer paying $1.99 for the production of a widget and a business owner hiring an employee to make a widget for the same price?

Besides the obvious fact that the customer gets to own the widget after it's produced?

 

[RDKirk]

Meaning what exactly? Because I'm white and well to do my opinion doesn't matter? Or that it's automatically wrong?



Except when they aren't.

When was an officer not exonerated for shooting a man who was actively resisting arrest (which doesn't include merely fleeing)?

Even if you flee, the police will continue looking for you. As I said before, the government is never going to let you go just because you're serious about it. At some point, they are going to kill you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When was an officer not exonerated for shooting a man who was actively resisting arrest (which doesn't include merely fleeing)?

What do you think "actively resisting arrest means" if not fleeing? That's practically the definition of actively resisting arrest. It's literally one step up from passively resisting arrest.

Even if you flee, the police will continue looking for you. As I said before, the government is never going to let you go just because you're serious about it. At some point, they are going to kill you.

Except when they don't.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Besides the obvious fact that the customer gets to own the widget after it's produced?

It wasn't actually something to be answered.

The only difference between a customer and business paying for the product is that the business owner is paying for an investment. Government mandating a minimum wage is not anything remotely in accordance because it is not a voluntary authority, to begin with (government is the monopoly of authority, having been created with the threat of force and continues to exist by enlisting force), and more to the point there is no exchange of title in the government's case (as the comedian Chris Rock once admitted, "you don't pay taxes; they take taxes"). In fact, if the government were a person it would be self-defense on part of the business owner to kill the government since the Minimum Wage IS a threat of force by being enforced through an involuntary monopoly of authority itself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It wasn't actually something to be answered.

The only difference between a customer and business paying for the product is that the business owner is paying for an investment.

Sure, that and what I mentioned...

Government mandating a minimum wage is not anything remotely in accordance because it is not a voluntary authority, to begin with (government is the monopoly of authority, having been created with the threat of force and continues to exist by enlisting force), and more to the point there is no exchange of title in the government's case (as the comedian Chris Rock once admitted, "you don't pay taxes; they take taxes"). In fact, if the government were a person it would be self-defense on part of the business owner to kill the government since the Minimum Wage IS a threat of force by being enforced through an involuntary monopoly of authority itself.

Except, you know, government isn't a person...it's the representation of the people's interests, which of course, are different from the interests of business.

Sorry, but even Adam Smith understood that this capitalistic society of ours wouldn't survive without significant regulation.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Except, you know, government isn't a person...it's the representation of the people's interests, which of course, are different from the interests of business.

Except, you know, governments and businesses don't even exist in the first place. Their difference relies on their methodology of establishment, methods, and intent. Governments are established by force, with the intent reliant on the belief that people and their self-interest are evil; businesses are established by individuals on a voluntary basis, with the intent of profit through appealing to others' self-interest.

Sorry, but even Adam Smith understood that this capitalistic society of ours wouldn't survive without significant regulation.

What Adam Smith failed to mention is the fact regulations can and do exist independent of government, and that government is its own lawlessness. If you want to talk capitalism, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises are the experts - not Adam Smith (or even Ayn Rand for that matter).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except, you know, governments and businesses don't even exist in the first place. Their difference relies on their methodology of establishment, methods, and intent. Governments are established by force, with the intent reliant on the belief that people and their self-interest are evil; businesses are established by individuals on a voluntary basis, with the intent of profit through appealing to others' self-interest.

I'm gonna have to disagree with your characterization of government. It would be a fairly large mistake to create a representative democracy if you believed people and their self interest are evil.

Also, it's worth pointing out that businesses couldn't exist without governments.

What Adam Smith failed to mention is the fact regulations can and do exist independent of government, and that government is its own lawlessness.

I don't think he failed to mention any of that...but he understood business wouldn't regulate itself in every necessary way.

If you want to talk capitalism, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises are the experts - not Adam Smith (or even Ayn Rand for that matter).

Two Austrian school libertarians who are generally regarded as...wrong by most contemporary economists? I'll pass.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Except, you know, governments and businesses don't even exist in the first place. Their difference relies on their methodology of establishment, methods, and intent. Governments are established by force, with the intent reliant on the belief that people and their self-interest are evil; businesses are established by individuals on a voluntary basis, with the intent of profit through appealing to others' self-interest.



What Adam Smith failed to mention is the fact regulations can and do exist independent of government, and that government is its own lawlessness. If you want to talk capitalism, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises are the experts - not Adam Smith (or even Ayn Rand for that matter).

Is that what this is all about? You're one of those foaming at the mouth, idealistic, libertarians?

 

[Vyrzaharak]

I'll even offer the words of two early left-leaning advocates (not out of authority).

Firstly, that of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. … To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Secondly, that of Mikhail Bakunin:

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

And finally, that of Voltairine de Cleyre:

The paramount question of the day is not political, is not religious, but is economic. The crying-out demand of today is for a circle of principles that shall forever make it impossible for one man to control another by controlling the means of his existence.

This is not a question of expediency, but of right. In antebellum days the proposition was not, Are the blacks good enough to be free? but, Have they the right? So today the question is not, Will outrages result from freeing humanity? but, Has it the right to life, the means of life, the opportunities of happiness?

In my case, I don't not find government inevitable. Unnecessary, but inevitable all the same. After all, wildfires are inevitable but hardly necessary. More to the point, I'm not even against socialism or communism, so much as it is I'd argue that until we live in a post-scarcity world they simply cannot exist and the only way to achieve a world of post-scarcity is through capitalism.

I'm gonna have to disagree with your characterization of government.

Why have laws if everyone's good? Hmm...

It would be a fairly large mistake to create a representative democracy if you believed people and their self interest are evil.

It is a fairly large mistake, and yet that's exactly what happened in the United States and elsewhere. It should come as no surprise as to why even from the point of view that government is necessary, why democracy is the biggest failure of all.

Also, it's worth pointing out that businesses couldn't exist without governments.

Businesses can exist without government, you're thinking of corporations.

I don't think he failed to mention any of that...but he understood business wouldn't regulate itself in every necessary way.

He did fail at it. We have numerous regulatory businesses that were privately established without any government involvement.

Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
American Dental Association
Better Business Bureau
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)
True Ultimate Standards Everywhere, Inc (TRUSTe)
American Bar Association

Oh, and are you saying you don't regulate yourself? You're going to tell me that you're so weak-willed, that you can't handle deciding what's best for yourself? That you have to have someone tell you it's a bad idea to eat a turd no matter how much gold has been painted on it? No wonder why you believe government is necessary.

Two Austrian school libertarians who are generally regarded as...wrong by most contemporary economists? I'll pass.

Actually, only by a miniscule amount of Keynesian economists at best. But then again, when economics is monopolized by the state it is hard to find any claimed expert supportive of a non-state school.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Is that what this is all about? You're one of those foaming at the mouth, idealistic, libertarians?

"Foaming at the mouth"? "Idealistic"? That'll really convince someone out there, and that you're even acting as if I ever hid what I advocate for is the cherry on the topping.

Autarchy vs. Anarchy - Robert Lefevre

Why I am a Panarchist - Michael S. Rozeff

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll even offer the words of two early left-leaning advocates (not out of authority).

Firstly, that of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. … To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Secondly, that of Mikhail Bakunin:

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

And finally, that of Voltairine de Cleyre:

The paramount question of the day is not political, is not religious, but is economic. The crying-out demand of today is for a circle of principles that shall forever make it impossible for one man to control another by controlling the means of his existence.

This is not a question of expediency, but of right. In antebellum days the proposition was not, Are the blacks good enough to be free? but, Have they the right? So today the question is not, Will outrages result from freeing humanity? but, Has it the right to life, the means of life, the opportunities of happiness?

You can quote as many idealistic fools as you like...it doesn't change reality.

Where communists fail to account for human competition and believe "we can all share together" the libertarian fails to account for even more basic human tendencies...taking the path of least resistance...and believes "I can make it all on my own."

In my case, I don't not find government inevitable. Unnecessary, but inevitable all the same. After all, wildfires are inevitable but hardly necessary. More to the point, I'm not even against socialism or communism, so much as it is I'd argue that until we live in a post-scarcity world they simply cannot exist and the only way to achieve a world of post-scarcity is through capitalism.

Inevitable? Undoubtedly. Unnecessary? Of course...we can all still live like animals you know. We decided long ago on something better. That meant that while you were out looking for resources...someone watched what you had to make sure no one took it...and vice versa. And so walls were built, soldiers formed, city states created, and nations realized.

Without any government...all your time would be spent guarding your meager possessions...lest you could carry them upon your back. Necessary? Only for civilization...only for society.

Why have laws if everyone's good? Hmm...

I only said everyone can act in their self interest...that's how governments form after all.

It is a fairly large mistake, and yet that's exactly what happened in the United States and elsewhere. It should come as no surprise as to why even from the point of view that government is necessary, why democracy is the biggest failure of all.

Even if you deem it a failure...it's a failure that's preferred to every other form of government.

Businesses can exist without government, you're thinking of corporations.

That's fair...give me an example of a business that preceded the formation of government or survived the destruction of one.

He did fail at it. We have numerous regulatory businesses that were privately established without any government involvement.

Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
American Dental Association
Better Business Bureau
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)
True Ultimate Standards Everywhere, Inc (TRUSTe)
American Bar Association

Wonderful...do any of those stop their respective businesses from becoming monopolized and ending in a market failure? I'll wait...

Oh, and are you saying you don't regulate yourself? You're going to tell me that you're so weak-willed, that you can't handle deciding what's best for yourself?

What if my best interest is to kill you in your sleep and loot all you have? People act in their best interests, regardless of what that is...

That you have to have someone tell you it's a bad idea to eat a turd no matter how much gold has been painted on it? No wonder why you believe government is necessary.

Only for civilization.

Bottom line is that where one man wants to get over on another, he'll work with another man. Where three want over on two , they will. Where four want over on three, they join together. And so on until you have a group large enough to need rules, leaders, and bang...you've got yourself a form of government.

Anarchy isn't just the pipe dream of idiots...it's impossible.

Actually, only by a miniscule amount of Keynesian economists at best. But then again, when economics is monopolized by the state it is hard to find any claimed expert supportive of a non-state school.

Why do you suppose there never were any businesses out in the wilds...beyond the boundaries of a government?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Foaming at the mouth"? "Idealistic"? That'll really convince someone out there, and that you're even acting as if I ever hid what I advocate for is the cherry on the topping.

Autarchy vs. Anarchy - Robert Lefevre

Why I am a Panarchist - Michael S. Rozeff

It's been awhile since I've seen your ilk. Most people grow out of such vanities.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

[snip]

So yeah, your argument for the state does come down to acknowledging men are evil. Now tell me, by what measure should I assume that you believe that the state will govern any better on a collective level, when they cannot govern themselves individually? Insanity in individuals is rare, but in groups... it is the rule.

I have no reason to assume men are good or bad, however, I also have no reason to assume men will act any better under a collective than without.

Meanwhile, anarchy is only as impossible as the human condition. Anarchy exists, whether you like it or not; every day, anarchy is practiced across the planet. Even internationally, every country operates anarchistically, and you yourself are an anarchist regardless of what you believe, unless of course you're a totalitarian advocate for a one-world government (which I have no problem with, ironically). As Robert Lefevre pointed out, "anyone who believes in less government than you do, is an anarchist."

It's been awhile since I've seen your ilk. Most people grow out of such vanities.

Good for you, I'm all out of gold stars to give out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So yeah, your argument for the state does come down to acknowledging men are evil.

Acknowledge whatever you like...I'm not making moral judgements, I'm simply explaining reality.

Now tell me, by what measure should I assume that you believe that the state will govern any better on a collective level, when they cannot govern themselves individually?

That's completely irrelevant. You can govern yourself individually as best you see fit...if you run up against the will of a hundred of the worst governed men in the history of mankind, you'll no longer exist. Even a poorly governed 100 can outdo 1 well governed 1.

I have no reason to assume men are good or bad, however, I also have no reason to assume men will act any better under a collective than without.

I'm not saying they will or won't.

Meanwhile, anarchy is only as impossible as the human condition. Anarchy exists, whether you like it or not; every day, anarchy is practiced across the planet. Even internationally, every country operates anarchistically,

Sure, there is no authority above the nation....you know, until pressures create it.

and you yourself are an anarchist regardless of what you believe, unless of course you're a totalitarian advocate for a one-world government (which I have no problem with, ironically).

Nonsense, below nation level actions anarchy doesn't exist.

As Robert Lefevre pointed out, "anyone who believes in less government than you do, is an anarchst.

An anarchist is a fool who has the luxury of living in a government. Any man actually living in anarchy will strive immediately for government.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Acknowledge whatever you like...I'm not making moral judgements, I'm simply explaining reality.

You're not explaining reality. You're justifying government on might makes right.

That's completely irrelevant. You can govern yourself individually as best you see fit...if you run up against the will of a hundred of the worst governed men in the history of mankind, you'll no longer exist. Even a poorly governed 100 can outdo 1 well governed 1.

Yeah, that's what the Brits told America.

I'm not saying they will or won't.

Sure, sure. You're still advocating for it, all the same.

Sure, there is no authority above the nation....you know, until pressures create it. [...] Nonsense, below nation level actions anarchy doesn't exist.

No wonder government exists - because of people like you. You don't want the responsibility of governing yourself, so you expect everyone else to do so for you.

An anarchist is a fool who has the luxury of living in a government. Any man actually living in anarchy will strive immediately for government.

Yes, some men strive to create government, and it's always under the pretense of some 'greater good'. That doesn't prove it is necessary, however, and it does not make a man a fool to seek something better. Though, anything beats being a misanthropist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're not explaining reality. You're justifying government on might makes right.

It's not an issue of "might makes right"...it's not an issue of morality at all. It's a matter of rational self interest...I'm better off in a large group than I am alone, and so are you.

Yeah, that's what the Brits told America.

And?

Sure, sure. You're still advocating for it, all the same.

No...even if mankind had no malice, no ill will, it would still be this way. A million people could organize and pull every conceivable resource from around you and bring about your end just as surely as if they'd taken it from you...all in rational self interest.

No wonder government exists - because of people like you. You don't want the responsibility of governing yourself, so you expect everyone else to do so for you.

No...mankind simply is smart. It would be harder to exist on our own....easier together. You simply believe that you're somehow more capable, intelligent, moral than mankind...you aren't.

Yes, some men strive to create government, and it's always under the pretense of some 'greater good'. That doesn't prove it is necessary, however, and it does not make a man a fool to seek something better. Though, anything beats being a misanthropist.

If you had any conviction, any heart, any belief in what you say being true.. you'd go find some patch of wilderness and live unfettered by government. You and I both know why you don't.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

It's not an issue of "might makes right"...it's not an issue of morality at all. It's a matter of rational self interest...I'm better off in a large group than I am alone, and so are you.

Society fits that just fine. Government need not apply.

And?

And the Brits were proven wrong when less than 33% of the colonies supported the cause for revolution.

No...even if mankind had no malice, no ill will, it would still be this way. A million people could organize and pull every conceivable resource from around you and bring about your end just as surely as if they'd taken it from you...all in rational self interest.

If there were no malice, there'd be no worry for anything.

No...mankind simply is smart. It would be harder to exist on our own....easier together. You simply believe that you're somehow more capable, intelligent, moral than mankind...you aren't.

Nope, I do not. I simply do not assume a collective is anything more than what it's people are.

If you had any conviction, any heart, any belief in what you say being true.. you'd go find some patch of wilderness and live unfettered by government. You and I both know why you don't.

You're the one that believes government exists underneath everything else. I have no need to assume such fallacious belief, as I already demonstrated: anarchy is everywhere. In fact, it is because of my convictions I stay right where I am (though I would happily move elsewhere anyways), especially since part of my conviction lies in the classic idealism of America.

"America is the most inventive country in the world. Why? Because everybody has access to information. In the Soviet Union it was illegal to take a photograph of a train station. Look what happened to them. They tried to classify everything. The more information available to the average person, the greater the synergy that develops from it." - Tom Clancy

"I say to you that our goal is freedom, and I believe we are going to get there because however much she strays away from it, the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be as a people, our destiny is tied up in the destiny of America." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The founding fathers intended that America be composed of self-reliant individuals who would not hesitate to pull the reins in on their rulers. However, in the past 75 years, the soaring number of government dependents has made it far more difficult to curb politicians’ power. Federal policy is dividing society between those who work for a living and those who vote for a living." - H.L. Mencken

"The bitter, of course, goes with the sweet. To be an American is, unquestionably, to be the noblest, grandest, the proudest mammal that ever hoofed the verdure of God’s green footstool. Often, in the black abysm of the night, the thought that I am one awakens me with a blast of trumpets, and I am thrown into a cold sweat by contemplation of the fact. I shall cherish it on the scaffold; it will console me in Hell. But there is no perfection under Heaven, so even an American has his small blemishes, his scarcely discernible weaknesses, his minute traces of vice and depravity." - H.L. Mencken

"The sin our fathers sinned was that they did not trust liberty wholly. They thought it possible to compromise between liberty and government, believing the latter to be 'a necessary evil,' and the moment the compromise was made, the whole misbegotten monster of our present tyranny began to grow. Instruments which are set up to safeguard rights become the very whip with which the free are struck." - Voltairine de Cleyre

In turn, I would suggest that it is you who needs to leave. That with the cause of America being in liberty, you need to leave back to Europe where you can enjoy your governments so much more. After all, it's not like Europe doesn't have a government fit for your ilk, and my ancestors as well as those of most Americans who migrated here before America was a thing and even after America became a thing fleed because of people such as yourself. (Not to mention, all of the greatest inventions of the world were invented by self-interested individuals laboring in freedom...)