I need some help please.

[Spideynw]

I need some help responding to this post: ttp://www.libertylounge.net/forums/28961-universal-health-care-common-sense-7.html#post177599

Your parents knew what costs/benefits would happen if you were born and raised in the US…you were and as guardians they are allowed to make decisions for you…they agreed on your behalf for a social contract, and you have yet to reject it

You didn’t have to re-affirm it, but if you’re a male you did when you signed up for the selective service

Could you help me point out the fallacies in this argument?

[mr_anonymous]

I would not worry about that as much as I would the argument by the same person which stated that the 1930s were a “libertarain time”. It is pretty clear that this fellow in quite unlearned in economics and american history.

[Ego]

That guy is nuts! I just posted a response, hopefully it gets approved soon.

What a piece of leftist trash.

[mr_anonymous]

@Ego

That guy is nuts! I just posted a response, hopefully it gets approved soon.

What a piece of leftist trash.

Haha I just joined that forum so I could respond to his idiocy too.

[Ego]

How did your post get approved so quicky?

[mr_anonymous]

I am not sure. The first one I posted got approved in like 2 minutes, but I posted a second one about 10 minutes ago and it hasnt been approved yet. So basically I am not sure. . .

[Ego]

I didn’t save my post; I thought it was pretty decent, so I should have posted it here, too.

[Spideynw]

I definitely like your post

You aren’t agreeing to statist policies by signing up for the draft. You aren’t agreeing to statist policies by using welfare, food stamps, or Social Security. You aren’t agreeing to statist polcies by using the breadlines in North Korea. It’s just the system you live in. If your neighbor robs you, but uses some of that money to buy you food, are you agreeing to his robbery by eating the food paid for by your stolen money? Of course not!

[MacFall]

Not too hard. The only sort of contract wherein one party enters another into a binding agreement without the latter party’s knowledge and approval is a slave contract.

Parents don’t own their children; they own only a trusteeship over the rights of their children, until such time as the children are rationally capable of exercising their rights on their own, and before then only to the extent of the child’s rational incapacity.

If it is true that children are bound by the interminable agreements into which their parents enter them without their say-so, then it is true that all persons are slaves to their parents, even after their parents’ deaths.

[Ego]

Thanks! It posted!

[Spideynw]

You guys should check out some of the other threads on the forum. There are some pretty liberal people on it.

[Spideynw]

@MacFall

Not too hard. The only sort of contract wherein one party enters another into a binding agreement without the latter party’s knowledge and approval is a slave contract.

Parents don’t own their children; they own only a trusteeship over the rights of their children, until such time as the children are rationally capable of exercising their rights on their own, and before then only to the extent of the child’s rational incapacity.

If it is true that children are bound by the interminable agreements into which their parents enter them without their say-so, then it is true that all persons are slaves to their parents, even after their parents’ deaths.

Mind if I copy and paste this as a response?

[Ego]

I posted another response. This guy is the typical smug leftist. It’s so fun arguing with them!

[MacFall]

@Spideynw

@MacFall

Not too hard. The only sort of contract wherein one party enters another into a binding agreement without the latter party’s knowledge and approval is a slave contract.

Parents don’t own their children; they own only a trusteeship over the rights of their children, until such time as the children are rationally capable of exercising their rights on their own, and before then only to the extent of the child’s rational incapacity.

If it is true that children are bound by the interminable agreements into which their parents enter them without their say-so, then it is true that all persons are slaves to their parents, even after their parents’ deaths.

Mind if I copy and paste this as a response?

Go right ahead.

[Solreyus]

@Spideynw

Mind if I copy and paste this as a response?

Add this important line of reasoning:

If we take the age of legal maturity as 18, then at the age of 18, using the logic the poster was using in that thread, you should be able to secede from the government. Technically, if you own your house, it is your private property and the power of the government, together with its borders, ends at your doorstep. If you disagree, then you advocate violation of private property, and hence violation of self-ownership and freedom, and hence advocate slavery (partial or full does not matter).

You’re either for private property, or against it. The arguments against it are incompatible with self-ownership, while any arguments in between the two become subject to arbitrary boundaries and eventual usurpation by politicians (slippery slope, etc).

So really if you secede at the age of 18 while remaining on your own private property or the property of other individuals who consent to you using it, the government has no right to tax you, because it would be violating your property rights. As far as I know, there are no laws that say using government owned roads immediately subjects you to the entire burden of taxation.

One could argue that in using government roads you subject yourself to a social contract, but while this line of reasoning is faulty (you could just count it as trespassing), it would nevertheless lead to the conclusion that you’re not obliged to pay any taxes unrelated to roads…

[Ego]

I might be banned soon, haha.

I’m agreeing to be robbed by not leaving the country? What kind of scummish logic is that? If your immediate neighbors to you left and right decide that all three of you should contribute money towards a swimming pool, and you don’t want to, should you be forced to move? Think about it.

Instead of acting out on your desire to control others, how about letting people live their own lives?

[mr_anonymous]

@Ego

I might be banned soon, haha.

Haha, I think I was already banned for simply telling that Thorgism leftist that “That is the most ignorant sensless thing I have ever heard, why dont you get off this site and read a book.” (In reference to his comments on the Great Depression) I didnt even think that was very offensive, but what ever, its good to be back with freedom loving people here ; )

Edit

[Inquisitor]

Wow, talk about collectivistic hogwash. At best, your parents have a right of custody over you, to act in your best interests. Does this include entering you into so-called “contracts” that you may never opt out? In fact, why should you consent to contracts you never entered in the first place? Can’t contracts be opted out of? What sort of contract is this? In brief, it is merely statist masturbatory fiction. And little more.

[mr_anonymous]

@Inquisitor

Wow, talk about collectivistic hogwash. At best, your parents have a right of custody over you, to act in your best interests. Does this include entering you into so-called “contracts” that you may never opt out? In fact, why should you consent to contracts you never entered in the first place? Can’t contracts be opted out of? What sort of contract is this? In brief, it is merely statist masturbatory fiction. And little more.

I couldnt have said it better. ; )

[Spideynw]

@Ego

I might be banned soon, haha.

Well, I hope you are not.