>> jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com
>> Thu Oct 26 09:11:53 PDT 2017
>
>> You have a very vague objection.
>I point out contradiction in your "tax" system.
No, I didn't purport to "tax" anyone. I ask for donations. If you are incapable of distinguishing between a "tax" and a "donation", that doesn't surprise me at all. Statistics are similarly incapable.
Then give metaphor.
Do you want a fucking powerpoint?
> Freedom is not free.
>
>Yes it is.
>Freedom is a "state" that costs nothing.
>It requires no input.
Getting to a condition of freedom, however, is not the same thing as being free. I tend to agree that once we actually achieve freedom, by means of AP, maintaining that state will be rather economical. Maybe you will agree that we aren't free today. If you agree, then you should acknowledge that we have to do things to become free. Those things may cost, even if the cost is low once we get there, to freedom.
>You are thinking of the expression of certain freedoms.
Be more specific.
>> you are wrong
>> because "capitalism"
>
>I am correct to assert that your double standard with "taxes" is
unacceptable. Your pursuit of "wealth" is okay.
Explain what you call "[my] double standard with "taxes"" . Asking for donations to help achieve a state of freedom isn't the same thing as taxation.
Also, you split up these comments in a confusing fashion. It's hard to respond when you do that.
> AP
> virtually nobody has argued it won't work.
> properly implemented
> just one murder away from utopia
The material above did not all come from me. Thus, it appears that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. The last line, I didn't write. Why do you distort what I actually wrote? You need to be more careful with your quoting.
>We've never tried 'REAL' Gommunism, anyway.
That's the current story put out by Communists and Communist sympathizers, at least. They have to explain away 100 years of history.
Although, I don't think it would matter, even if it were true as claimed. The goal is to solve problems of society. If a few dozen nations each claimed to adopt Communism, , and yet they all failed and NONE of them were said to be ACTUALLY "Communist" (by today's apologistic definition), that would be a valid indictment of the very concept of Communism, wouldn't it? After all, the issue isn't whether "Communism" can be implemented in some sort of rarified theory, but whether Communism could actually be implemented readily and work, more or less, like its 19th century promoters claimed would work.
> the actual problem is that you are a Statist
> u blakk, y u axin lyk u whyt ?
> y dis whyt boi axin lyk he blakk ?
>
>I think the problem is with your definition of "State".
>[Begin Quote]
>STATE
[much definitional drivel deleted]
[End Quote]
>By denying the "State" (political definition), you seem to be objecting
to groups and group activities, such as agreeing to work together, in a
shared "state" (all definitions).
It looks like you are falsely representing that "the state" amounts to "agreeing to work together in a shared "state"".
I don't believe that there is usually an "agreement" between all people affected by a "state". I don't recall ever having "agreed" to the existence of the Federal Government of the United States, to name just one example. The usual excuse is that some other people (many or most of whom are dead) made the decision for me, at least as early as 1789, when the U.S. Constitution was written. Whether or not that argument "works" is up for debate.
>Yet /asspol/ implements a group activity to "kill" individuals who do
not act in accordance with the interests of the group, for profit.
Actually, that criticism is quite backwards. AP donations are going to be made by individuals. "The interests of the group" are irrelevant in that context. Also, you are using the phrase, "of THE group", as if there is only one articulable group.
"Your fifth column option, AP, is a "State" (political definition) in the
very worst sense."
Your opinion.
> I see now that 'Libertarian' is not the objection to
both democratic and totalitarian systems but is the combination of the
two; the perception of freedom; Marxist Gommunism at its finest.
You are yet another delusional person. I will let others unpack that nonsense.
Jim Bell