Really makes you think

The greatest period of American history was the period between the expulsion of the British and the establishment of the federal government.
That brief period of glorious freedom, where any man could make his own destiny, and practice free association with all who shared his vision.
Then the federal government was established and the stamping down on freedoms began.

God has those rights, and sovereign powers exercise them.

>explain nice and simple
>still doesn't get it
>acts like faggot

Of course I am entitled to it, my ancestors worked hard, fought and died for these rights, so that their descendants, me, and my descendants may enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Yeah, funny, last I checked, I can't elect my stealer/agressor/slaver I don't get to impose limitation on him and can't get to sue him if he abuse them. But somehow it's the same thing.

>Of course I am entitled to it
You're not making any sense in terms of OP's pic. You can't at the same time require rights and claim government steals from you and enslaves you. Your ancestors accepted stakes and that with freedom comes responsibility. So if you're on board with that, what the fuck are you bitching about?

>attacks credibility and comprehension after posting off topic post
>claims of bitching

Hi Hayim

>basic government philosophy is anti-enlightenment
dumbass

no retard
i want rights in the libertarian sense of the word, not in the communist materialistic sense
every man should be responsible for his actions
the true freedom is taking care of yourslef and having responsability, instead of having to pay welfare for retards that cant plan ahead, or receiving welfare when you're the retard

You have it backwards. I did have those rights, and I gave them to the state in order to gain the benefits of cooperation. Unless you think grug magically had no ability to kill or enslave.

Naturally the rulers don't have to follow the rules. Are you retarded?

>off-topic post
>too slow to comprehend the topic at hand
>flag
No surprises there.

>euphemize
is that the right word to use here?

>the true freedom is taking care of yourslef and having responsability, instead of having to pay welfare for retards that cant plan ahead, or receiving welfare when you're the retard
Yeah, well, this isn't your ideal utopia, so if you can't accept the rules we have collectively set up - including taking care of the retarded - you are free to leave.

But to demand you can enjoy our clean water, social order, etc. and to not contribute, that is entitlement.

>taking care of the retarded
thats not a rule, thats somethign that the family is supposed to do and that has been done literally since pre-history.
you are basically asking the state to do shit that belongs to the family structure.

>thats not a rule, thats somethign that the family is supposed to do and that has been done literally since pre-history.
>you are basically asking the state to do shit that belongs to the family structure.
That really does not matter, it's what we've collectively agreed to. You have no right to occupy commonly owned land and demand the right to "not to play by the rules".

>collectively agreed to
see, this is the problem, you can only think collectively, not individually
you think you can force people to accept things just because you're the majority
people should be allowed freedom
what if i dont want to give money to Down Syndrome Services ?
families should be the ones choosing to take care of their disabled, their old people and their children, as they always had. its no place for the government to step in.

He's not American. He is literally incapable of understanding.

I dont believe in rights fag screw off lol

you have no rights if there is no goverment, whos gonna punish those who harm you?

The confederacy tried to bring that back and enshrine it in a far more rigorous constitution than what has enabled the current tyrannical government to come into being. We were so close to having genuine freedom, but the parasites won the war. We must fight and fight again until we get that freedom we've come so close to acquiring.

>what if i dont want to give money to Down Syndrome Services?
Then campaign for it. If you're the only one with that idea, you are free to go out and start a new country some place where the retarded will be executed.

Let me put a finer point on that.
Let's say a settlement in free land (no country) decides to defend their territory from predatorial animals, and most of them agree to chip in a bit of food so there can be dedicated watchmen for that. However, there's a dozen people in the settlement who say fuck you, we're not helping.

What's your solution there? Let the minority of assholes mooch off the welfare of others, or to kick them out into the wilderness? Or do they have a special "RIGHT" to be protected by others?

>Let the minority of assholes mooch off the welfare of others
just let them opt out of paying most taxes, making them unable to receive most public services aswell since they dont pay so much.
i think spaniards pay on average 10k a year in taxes just from their salary. do you think they get ANYTHING from that? only the ones in the hospital or going to school might actually get what they pay for

Rights are not an entitlement, they are a consequence of the existence of consciousness. Because we are conscious entities intrinsically connected to a body upon which only our unique will may impose itself, we have a property in that body. We own our bodies because it is only through our will that our bodies may move of their own volition rather than through the mechanical manipulation of another entity.
Considering the consequences of this necessary truth an entitlement is only possible if you consider it an entitlement from God. If you believe in God then it is through his divine will that our nature is as such, and so from him we have this entitlement. If you don't believe in God then this is simply the observed reality of the situation. We are conscious and these are the consequences.

>Being against the American government
You realize Trump is in power right? The American government is based.

I give you a concrete, extremely simple example and you respond with irrelevant nonsense. The only service the settlement in question provides is the protection from predators. What do you do with people who refuse to contribute to the cause that can only achieved for the whole of the collective or not at all?

Answer the fucking question.

Back in the days of the less restricted market in America we had a similar situation. Fire departments were completely community based and support for fire departments was displayed by businesses and residencies through emblemation. Companies that helped to pay for fire protection for the whole town would display an emblem they would get from the fire department of their choosing. This was a powerful horizontal enforcement tool, as those companies that didn't display any emblem had their reputations tarnished as greedy folk and would see a loss in traffic. Likewise, there were market based mutual aid societies that would offer discounts and such for those business that helped pay for fire protection services. This is all market based and voluntary, not requiring any government imposition of a tax. Horizontal enforcement is a powerful tool

What you're describing is literally just made up bullshit. Either play by the rules or GTFO. Outside civilized societies you have not even the "unfair" ones you don't agree with. Bears and wolves don't recognize your bullshit, they'll just eat you.

While I as well am happy it is Trump besides most other viable candidates, the government is definitely not based and continues down the same circlejerk it has gone in days' past.

>contribute to the cause
free market and coexistance is the only contribution needed
natural cooperation of individuals is the only contribution needed
why do you need Mommy State to tell you what to do and manage your money for you?

>This is all market based and voluntary, not requiring any government imposition of a tax
The problem with this is that there are tons of things where you can't do that, and I pointed out one very concrete, grassroots example. You respond to it - just the other guy - with generic bullshit without addressing the issue, not even a little.

>still doesn't answer the question
I'll take that as a forfeit.

The government is the same as it was under Reagan, aka based.

>he uses the qualities of his consciousness to impose his will upon his fingers to type out a statement saying that the existence of his will over his body is bullshit
Okay
>Bears and wolves don't recognize your bullshit, they'll just eat you.
They don't have consciousness and as such they can be considered biological machines. They operate as they will operate without regard for the decisions they make. Humans have metacognition and are aware that they are aware. That's what consciousness is. Animals have no rights because they are not conscious, while humans do have rights because we are conscious. The consequences of being a conscious entity are real regardless of the framework you exist within, that's what an inalienable right is.

In case you're retarded and can't differentiate the protection against predators from a fire department service, you can ignore a fire at a house with no badge, but you can't protect your perimeter selectively. It's either secure for everyone or it's not at all.

Bullshit, every single life-boat style issue you can come up with like this can be answered consistently. The situation you described can easily be handled through horizontal control. One such consequence of the ownership of the body is the ability to choose who you interact with, also known as the freedom of association. If a group in your village decides they don't want to chip in towards helping defend against predatory animals, then you can cut off all interaction with them. The majority of people who chip in to the cause will do likewise, because no one likes a blatant freeloader except other freeloaders. The price they pay is the opportunity cost of being part of the group which works towards common interests.

Well, I suggest you take that bullshit outside the Walled World of the West and see how universal your notions of rights really are.

your ponit is that people MUST contribute to the "Cause" (without really explaining the cause at all)
i dont know what you exactly mean by this

Okay, so your view is that they have some kind of right to mooch off the benefits others provide for the settlement. Because that's what that is, quite literally.

>then you can cut off all interaction with them
Who cares? Even in this ridiculously simplistic example, the moochers are WAY better off staying in the settlement than staying outside.

In comparison to being alone outside the settlement, the moochers win 100% of the time
>Pros: no predators
>Cons: none

And let's keep in mind, this is a settlement with JUST ONE such service. Not dozens like in real-life societies.

Like I said in the very first post I made ITT, this ideology you people push have one thing at the bottom of the barrel
>I demand things for free because muh made up rights and entitlements to mooch off others

A right is a right regardless of where you are. Just because the majority of the world infringes upon those rights doesn't mean those rights are not real. Rights aren't magic in the sense that their existence protects you from the infringement of them, rather, they are the articulation of the natural order.
You cannot be consistent in your reasoning in saying that the necessary consequences of the existence of your consciousness are not real. Those consequences are your rights. Just because someone infringes upon those consequences doesn't mean they aren't the necessary consequences according to the rules by which all thought is generated.
The measure to which a society respects the rights of an individual is the measure to which that society is in congruence with the natural order. The benefits of such congruence are found in the generalized market of human manifestation, or rather, the degree to which individuals can become the best forms of themselves according to their interests. A population of people enabled and incentivized to become the best forms of themselves will produce more, consume more efficiently, protect itself better, promote genius, etc.
In the short and long term a free society will always do better than an unfree one.

I'm starting to think you're a literal retard. The cause is obviously the protection service from predators. You know, the fucking centerpiece of the previous post?

>you don't have rights because someone may transgress them

what is reductionist stupidity?

I think you're confusing Western metaphysical theories and models with objective reality. What you're talking about are theoretical, made up constructs, it's not grounded in objective reality no way, no how.

if natural order were so self evident, you wouldnt even need to articulate it

Except again they pay a tremendous cost. They loose access to the breadth of society which will not stand for freeloaders. This has a broader competitive context, such that those societies which have a lower tolerance for freeloading will outcompete those that have a higher tolerance for freeloading. This is because freeloaders are parasitic drains. If some arbitrary group is a bunch of pussies and lets some kikes live in their midsts without contributing then let that group fail while another group which doesn't let those kikes live off them freely succeeds. There is a eugenic quality on the generalized marketplace that takes up the role of natural selection.
Lets consider two groups with your scenario. Group A has a very low tolerance for parasitism while Group B has a very high tolerance for parasitism. In both groups there is a subsection which would rather freeload than contribute to the protection from predators. Group A will apply serious horizontal pressure against their parasites due to their lower tolerance. They will openly mock them, ostracize them, deny them services, and otherwise make their existence hell. The parasites in this group will have no access to the decentralization of labor and will be completely responsible for the provision of all of their own personal goods. They are essentially isolated from the society and forced to provide everything for themselves. This means that the cost they incur by being freeloaders is offset by denying them services elsewhere. The cost of being a parasite is extremely high in this case.
In Group B the parasites are allowed to get away with it. They still have access to decentralized labor and can still get goods through trade with others who do contribute. This incentivizes parasitism and the parasite body will grow until it reaches the point where those who contribute refuse to help at all, leading to collapse. Group A wins out, and it is with groups like A that parasitism fails.

t. An individual who doesn't believe it to be self evident that all Men are born equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Your entire wall-of-text discusses the cost the parasites "pay for not contributing", while completely ignoring MY POST'S ONE AND ONLY POINT: The fact they're GAINING MASSIVE BENEFITS in comparison to having to live outside the society.

You seem to be under the delusion that everyone WANTS to contribute and get MAXIMAL amount from society. THAT'S ANTITHETICAL TO PARASITIC BEHAVIOR.

What is the parasite's interest NOT TO join the settlement with the predator protection and NOT contribute, when they're OBJECTIVELY WORSE OFF alone in the woods?

Besides, you're backpedaling HARD here. This
>They will openly make their existence hell.
is just another form of the "government tyranny". It just hasn't been externalized to a separate entity from the people.

>all Men are born equal
Yet the men signing that document had slaves of their own. The lack of self-awareness is not surprising, dogfucker.

>if logic were so self evident, you wouldn't even need mathematics
Just because an idea is a necessary conclusion doesn't mean it is understood prior to encountering it. Our rights are a set of synthetic judgements from the a priori foundation which is the existence of the perception of consciousness in the same way that mathematics is a set of synthetic judgements from the a priori foundation which is the existence of the perceptions of singularity/plurality (arithmetic), visual space (geometry), time (calculus), etc. Objective structures exist and we approximate them subjectively as we are slaves to subjectivity. External articulation allows us to work on a universal approximation rather than a purely subjective one. Synthetic judgements are the process of such an articulation, internal understanding of those synthetic judgements is the process of subjective incorporation of those judgements.
Objective reality is an argument we make. We have no grasp of objective reality beyond our subjective apprehension of it. If you believe that we are aware that we are aware then the consequences of that awareness are necessary. If you believe that we aren't aware that we are aware then you got me there.

It´s called society and beeing part of a collective you nigger

I am glad you signed contract when you were born with God himself who guaranteed you to have certain rights we as modern society agree on, you have specific kind of rights too, not totaly different like rigths of chinese peasant or roman slave, you have rights of todays free men. Happy for you.

You compare our rights to mathematics. The difference is that whether we accept them or not, those laws apply and exist, and we can't change them. Those laws define and limit our material realm. Our "rights" have no such properties. In terms of material reality, they're completely arbitrary and affect nothing outside our minds.

Please review to first post every time you come on this site, look at ad hominem please.

Though the way your shilling this thread suggests your on the clock, don't want to get caught slacking off

I'll punish them myself

>the government cares about ancap short bussers on 4chins
Nice schizoposting.

communist detected

I shouldn't have to tell you to review the strategy of total spectrum dominance. Your efforts here have done little more than muddy the water and sow discord,
> distracting from fact democide is the leading cause of non-natural death,
> distracting from the fact all our money is debt,
> distracting from the seldom talked but massive thievery of capital flight.

Oh and please review the strawman one as well, you've utilized it here multiple times

Attached: democide.jpg (225x225, 10K)

Caps lock is cruise control for mad.
My response was to show that through freedom the impetus is to minimize parasites. Those groups which control parasites better will do better, and so over time there will be cultural structures in place to weed out parasites. The "massive gain" you talk about is only real if the parasites already have a place in society. If someone doesn't own property in a safe region, then the people in that region can force them out as they are trespassing. To come into ownership of property you either need to inherit it, purchase it, or homestead it. If you're trying to get into Group A as I described earlier, then good luck doing so if you're a parasitic type of person.
The scenario you've described is true, but you've snuck in assumptions about the organization of such a society that I dispute. Such societies would fall apart as they ought to, and those that do form will have stronger guards against the introduction of new parasites into the mix. Any parasites born into the society will gain only security, while loosing access to every other industry in the society. The net burden on society is nullified because the society is not expending any resources on the parasite. The parasite becomes at most a space-taker in regard to the burden they place on society. The only dangerous parasite in this situation is the one that inherits property. They are inside the society already and their property can't be revoked from them rightfully unless they infringe upon the rights of others to whatever degree is considered appropriate culturally to warrant revocation in that manner. They are dangerous inasmuch as they were born into access of the resources of society, and they will only have that access so long as their parasitism is hidden from the others in the society. As soon as it is made clear what they are they lose their access to the productive output of society and are once again regarded as nothing more than an inconvenient rock.

Actually I have brought out ONE, JUST ONE concrete example, to which multiple people have replied to, but haven't really addressed in a reasonable manner.

Instead what we're seeing is expertly talking around the issue at hand, posting walls of text discussing things not really relevant to what I asked.

>Caps lock is cruise control for mad.
It's all I can do, really, if I wish to continue the conversation with a person who clearly goes through great effort to talk about anything but what I actually asked or pointed out.

>My response was to show that through freedom the impetus is to minimize parasites
But you did not address the issue. You're just talking about relative bullshit while refusing the address my entire point, which is that there's an incentive and there is no mitigation.

>The net burden on society is nullified because the society is not expending any resources on the parasite. The parasite becomes at most a space-taker in regard to the burden they place on society.
That's not true. Parasites expend drinking water, lumber, space, wildlife, and this is just a theoretical example. In reality they'd use your roads and infrastructure. If nothing actively prevents them from being parasites, they'll bring the whole system down.

>Such societies would fall apart as they ought to, and those that do form will have stronger guards against the introduction of new parasites into the mix.
Right, so now you've reframed this discussion into a fantasy setting. "what if we rebooted all of society according to my retarded beliefs".

I'm done. Seriously, the more discussions I have with people like you, the less I think of you.

Mathematics is the articulation of the structures by which we perceive existence. Geometry is the language of our spatial perception, arithmetic is the language of our singular and pluralistic perceptions, calculus is the language of our temporal perception, etc. Mathematics is a set of necessary consequences of perception, or, rather, synthetic judgements made from a priori foundations in perception. Rights are identical. They are based in the perception of consciousness rather than the perception of space, time, singularity/plurality. They are a set of necessary consequences, or, rather, synthetic judgements made from an a priori foundation in perception.
In that sense they are not arbitrary at all. There is only one set of synthetic judgements possible from the a priori foundation that is the perception of consciousness. That set is our rights. To deny they exist is equivalent to saying that you deny the consequences of our perception of singularity/plurality, which is to deny arithmetic.

>my entire point, which is that there's an incentive and there is no mitigation
You fail to see that societal failure and market impetus is the mitigation of parasitism. Those societies which enable parasitism will fail versus those that do not enable parasitism. Those societies which do not enable parasitism but do not prevent the introduction of new parasites will fail versus those societies which do not enable parasitism but do prevent the introduction of new parasites. The trend is towards greater restriction on the potential for the scenario you've presented to ever occur.
>Parasites expend drinking water, lumber, space, wildlife, and this is just a theoretical example. In reality they'd use your roads and infrastructure. If nothing actively prevents them from being parasites, they'll bring the whole system down.
How do they get that drinking water? Certainly not from a river protected and maintained by the society which has ostracized the parasite. Certainly not from a well which is owned by a private individual which has ostracized them for having been a parasite. They might get some from good will, but again, Group A is the one that is selected for long term, and so good will parasitism is minimized long term.
How will they get that lumber? Certainly not from a forest owned and maintained by the society which has ostracized them. That lumber is owned by those that protect the region, so they'd have to leave the safe zone to get their lumber and they'd have to get it themselves. No one in the selected for society will provide lumber to them as they are an ostracized parasite.
How will they purchase that space? They might inherit it, but beyond that they certainly won't find anyone in the society willing to sell it to them because they are parasites.
How will they obtain that wildlife? Certainly not from the owned and protected lands of the group which has ostracized them for being parasites. They will have to leave the protected region

>In reality they'd use your roads and infrastructure
Whose roads and infrastructure? The roads and infrastructure owned privately by those who refuse to allow the parasite onto their property on pain of violent expulsion and fee for trespassing?

>Right, so now you've reframed this discussion into a fantasy setting. "what if we rebooted all of society according to my retarded beliefs".
You are the one that said that this scenario took place in a free region. This implies that property rights are respected and that there is no intervening force which can infringe upon those rights. It isn't my fault you can't follow a simple argument of market impetus m8

>"Government is based"

fuck off commie