These guys are BRAVE!

[odeon]

If you've been bullied by one carpenter, must all carpenters die?

The carpenter concept isn't fundamentally wrong like the cop concept. Carpenters don't oppress people for a living.

Nor do policemen.

[TheoK]

Philosophically it's very simple. Either objective rights exist or they don't. In the first case you have "natural rights" per se, in which case you first have to voluntarily surrender these rights to the state for the state being legitimate. In the second case the state's rights are as subjective as yours. In neither case the state has an objective right per se to make you obey it. If the state had a right per se to make the citizens to obey, a slave owner would also have a right per se to hold slaves that were born on his properties. The principle of the state's and the slave owner's power is exactly the same. Either you can be forced to obey an authority (any kind of it) just by being born in a certain territory - a state or a plantation of a slave owner - or you can't. You can't have separate principles.

This man wrote an extremely interesting essay on the matter already 140 years ago:

NO TREASON.

[odeon]

Do you vote?

[TheoK]

Do you vote?

You vote on parties, not about if you're accepting the state's authority or not. It's like the slaves were allowed to vote for a new Massa every fourth year.

This is a blatant example of how the state was all but voluntarily "accepted" by the people: Battle of Sparrsätra

Were the Swedes voluntarily accepting to pay annual tax for all future or were they forced?

[odeon]

Philosophically, if you accept the voting system of a state, you also accept the rules coming with that system. As for the analogy you are trying to make, create one with at least some relevance and I might choose to comment on it.

[TheoK]

Philosophically, if you accept the voting system of a state, you also accept the rules coming with that system. As for the analogy you are trying to make, create one with at least some relevance and I might choose to comment on it.

Why are you deluding yourself? Are you so afraid of freedom?

You were never allowed to vote for or against the state itself.

I accept something by signing a detailed contract, totally voluntarily. If you sell a car wreck for 1000 kronor, you and the buyer both sign a contract that you accept the terms of the purchase. Neither you nor I or anyone else ever signed a "social contract".

[odeon]

So why are you participating in a society you don't believe in? Why do you accept their money?

Shooting cops is not freedom. Never was, never will be, no matter how you try to make it so by wishing it at night.

[TheoK]

So why are you participating in a society you don't believe in? Why do you accept their money?

Shooting cops is not freedom. Never was, never will be, no matter how you try to make it so by wishing it at night.

Show me an inhabitable place on this planet without state, laws and cops and I will move there today.

As for the money, they are my parents' tax money coming in return to me as a heritage in advance as well as a compensation for all wrongs done to me by the state itself and the state neglecting its so called duties by allowing me to be bullied etc.

If one of your kids get a meltdown in public and a cop shoots them and goes free, what would you think about that? You know perfectly well that that has happened before.

And your "Why do you accept disability payment and vote" is both cheap (as well as disloyal to a fellow Aspie) and false. Do you mean that a person who doesn't vote and earns his own living and never used public education and health care would be allowed to disobey the laws? Of course you don't. You "believe" in the state, because that's the easiest thing to do. I don't get it. You could at least say "This system is wrong and false, but I accept it as long as it isn't unbearable". That's not even illegal (not yet at least).

[TheoK]

Speaking of: http://gt.expressen.se/nyheter/1.1928388/utredning-visar-polisen-gjorde-ratt-som-skot-eleven

Little piggie "did nothing wrong" when shooting a psychically confused guy, 1.64 "tall" and weighing less than 60 kilos and waving with a dull knife. Phew!  

[odeon]

So why are you participating in a society you don't believe in? Why do you accept their money?

Shooting cops is not freedom. Never was, never will be, no matter how you try to make it so by wishing it at night.

Show me an inhabitable place on this planet without state, laws and cops and I will move there today.

I think you mean "habitable".

As for the money, they are my parents' tax money coming in return to me as a heritage in advance as well as a compensation for all wrongs done to me by the state itself and the state neglecting its so called duties by allowing me to be bullied etc.

Yes, I know you think that is the case. I happen to disagree. The simple fact of the matter is that your parents' tax money is not enough by far, even if one accepted your notion (which I don't). I don't think *my* tax money should go to you--I want to provide for my kids, I want good roads, etc.

If one of your kids get a meltdown in public and a cop shoots them and goes free, what would you think about that? You know perfectly well that that has happened before.

I would be upset and that cop would die, but that wouldn't make me blame all cops. And no, I don't know it has happened before.

And your "Why do you accept disability payment and vote" is both cheap (as well as disloyal to a fellow Aspie) and false. Do you mean that a person who doesn't vote and earns his own living and never used public education and health care would be allowed to disobey the laws? Of course you don't. You "believe" in the state, because that's the easiest thing to do. I don't get it. You could at least say "This system is wrong and false, but I accept it as long as it isn't unbearable". That's not even illegal (not yet at least).

Drawing the fellow aspie card now? We disagree on this, and rather strongly. Live with it. I know you don't "get it", I know you don't understand my views, but accept that I have them.

I believe in our system because I think having it is better than being without one. I believe that it is possible to change it, as long as you don't try to change it by violating the rights of others, including cops, disabled people, carpenters, etc. I don't believe in anarchy, and I don't believe that cops are bad by definition.

How is it "false" to disagree with you? How is it "disloyal to a fellow aspie" to disagree, period?

[TheoK]

I think you mean "habitable".

  Yes, I do.

Yes, I know you think that is the case. I happen to disagree. The simple fact of the matter is that your parents' tax money is not enough by far, even if one accepted your notion (which I don't). I don't think *my* tax money should go to you--I want to provide for my kids, I want good roads, etc.

I actually am incapable of a regular job, especially the typical one where you will have to deal with lots of other people. I would get a depression and/or a meltdown sooner or later. Same with studies. I actually tried both for many years before getting my disability.

I don't know if my parents' tax money alone would do, but I do know that the "average" Swedish tax payer pays more than 3 times what s/he ever gets back from the state.

I would be upset and that cop would die, but that wouldn't make me blame all cops. And no, I don't know it has happened before.

But it has happened: http://www.nyhetswebben.se/wp/?p=3795

Interestingly enough, they call a 16 year old boy a "man" when the cops have shot him.

It also happened in Västmanland some years ago. That man was an adult, though, but the cops shot him in front of his parents. The cops weren't in real danger, since there was a gate between them and the man. He was killed and the cop who shot didn't get any punishment at all.

Drawing the fellow aspie card now? We disagree on this, and rather strongly. Live with it. I know you don't "get it", I know you don't understand my views, but accept that I have them.

I believe in our system because I think having it is better than being without one. I believe that it is possible to change it, as long as you don't try to change it by violating the rights of others, including cops, disabled people, carpenters, etc. I don't believe in anarchy, and I don't believe that cops are bad by definition.

How is it "false" to disagree with you? How is it "disloyal to a fellow aspie" to disagree, period?

There have been functioning anarchies. This one in the US (or as an anarchist enclave within the US) was one of the most interesting; no cops, no laws and yet nothing that would be called "crimes" in a society with laws. They lived in peace: Modern Times

There have been quite many of them. They were usually destroyed not from within but from outside by -- a state: List of anarchist communities

"Anarchy" means "without rulers" (or literally, from ancient Greek "without elders"), not "without order". 

[odeon]

Lit, I don't question your right to receive disability. I simply note that to me, it seems strange to accept payment from the state when you basically want to destroy it. Neither do I question your inability to work or study, I merely note what to me are discrepancies in your argument. To me, a state that does provide for its disabled citizens is a good thing and something that speaks for, not against, its existence.

I think we agree on the taxes being too high in this country, and I think a lot of it goes to what I see as exercises in futility, but I also think that it is not all wasted.

As for the matter of police brutality, a few isolated cases do nothing for your argument. I don't think it is possible to generalise. I happen to think that they are needed and I think seeing them as oppressors as a general rule is ludicrous.

And I know what "anarchy" means. I simply don't believe in the concept. I'm well aware of most of the communities you cite, but they don't actually prove or disprove anything. They tend to come up whenever anarchy is discussed, but I don't recall anyone actually won such an argument. In any case, I can't be arsed to repeat that argument here. It doesn't lead anywhere.

[TheoK]

I know the discussion is futile, but I was always against the state deciding things that I thought wasn't of their concern, already as a child. It was nothing strange with the state punishing burglars, molesters, rapists, killers etc, but it was impossible to understand why the state punished people not doing any harm to others or their property. That struck me already as a 4-5 year old.

And that people in Sweden and most of Europe didn't have a right to buy a gun without a license or that you didn't even had an absolute right of defending yourself in your own home was nothing but an insult and a meaningless humiliation. This wasn't/isn't something imposed upon criminals, which would have been kind of understandable, but upon law-abiding people, who have done no harm. The law betrays the ones who are obeying it!

I actually got the first deep feeling of ultimate betrayal in my life, when my dad told me that you had the right to buy guns and defend yourself with them in the US but not in Sweden.

Even if you accept the state concept, which I once did myself, it's still unacceptable that people who have done no harm don't have a "natural" right to defend themselves and also getting the means for it. A state that doesn't trust its law-abiding citizens cannot have a just cause itself in my humble opinion, not even if you embrace the state concept as such.

And, to be even more cynical, I'd say that the welfare state and "democracy" are smart inventions: they make the state running more smoothly than an openly declared dictatorship without social security, even if we benefit from it too.

[Scrapheap]

If you've been bullied by one carpenter, must all carpenters die?

The carpenter concept isn't fundamentally wrong like the cop concept. Carpenters don't oppress people for a living.

Nor do policemen.

Do you mind explaining to the class, who the GeStaPo were?? 

You have to understand that there's such a thing as political laws. Any state who passes and enforces political laws is in the business of oppressing their people.

[TheoK]

This is interesting btw, speaking of the legitimacy of the state. It's a dialogue between Göring and an American psychologist in Nuremberg:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Göring knew how things work.