government will always exist and be needed by the people who are unable to run theyre own affairs....I have been trying to wake people up for several months now and I have just come to the conclusion that FUCK IT some sh-people really need that headmaster figure looming over them...just like a dog only feels comfort when its boundaries are defined...thats not me ..and thats not a fair percentage of people in society..stop squabling over minor differences...its way too late for that behaviour..
@dooglio I think we need to go back a little further than that. Your question assumes your oft-repeated claim that all government is based on violence. Let's settle THAT little nugget of crazy before we move on to all the other arguments you're basing on it. Support your claim.
@Omeo please,i went into the public gallery of a uk court...refused to stand for the judge and was promplt beaten up and i mean beaten up...no joke i have the scars to prove it,if the state cant get there way they turn primitive.nobody in charge loves a rebel....but rebellion is the human spirit in its most simplest form.rebel my friend and you will find out that all govs are based on violence.......I will continue 'MY' path,for it is 'OUR' destiny.
@Omeo Glad to. Do you know what a contract is? If a contract is made under duress, is it valid? The answer is: no, it is not. Is there a contract between "citizen" and government? The answer is easy--no, because coercion is involved--it's the law! You have to file a tax return or face jail time.
What happens when you fail to follow a law? Do they ask you nicely to comply, and if not, have a nice day? Or do armed men and women come and manhandle you away? Is this not violence?
@dooglio Once again, being required to follow the rules of a society is not violence. Punishing those who violate the laws is not corrupt. This is how all societies are run. If you know a way to maintain order without rules and punishments for breaking them, I'd like to hear it. That research you referred to earlier is idealistic nonsense that doesn't jive with human nature. While most humans are at least civil to each other, some are not and it is because of those people that rules exist.
@dooglio Punishment for breaking the rules need not be violent. Just because it often is in modern society does not mean it MUST be. Again, you're taking some bad examples and claiming they represent the nature of government, speaking of ad hominems. Just because armed men may show up to arrest you doesn't mean they are threatening to shoot you. It's entirely possible to be arrested peacefully. In fact, I'm pretty sure that happens a lot.
@dooglio Those armed men and women probably have those guns to defend themselves in case YOU get violent. Non-tax-paying, anti-government people like you have a bit of a reputation for being well-armed lunatics who will try to shoot any government agents who might show up to arrest or even talk to you. Showing up armed to arrest you is NOT the same thing as threatening you with violence.
@Omeo No one likes a bully, right? Why? Because a bully uses the threat of force to ensure compliance. Is this not violent? So he doesn't have to throw a punch--but he's bigger and mean looking and he terrifies you so you cowtow. And you would say that it isn't violent?
The government operates in the same manner. Pay or face violent consequences, the degree of which rises as you apply resistance.
@dooglio The consequences of not paying your taxes are rarely violent and, again, they need not be violent at all. Again, just because that sometimes happens in our society doesn't mean that's the way it has to happen is every society with a system of government.
@dooglio I would accept reason if I thought you were being reasonable, but you're not. You are quite clearly a paranoid schizophrenic. What I am defending here isn't so much government itself, but any system used to maintain order in a society, which tends to take the form of what we call a government in almost every case.
@Omeo Don't dodge the question. I have successfully shown that 1) government is based on violence and 2) it follows that it is corrupt by its very nature. What part of my reasoning do you have a problem with? Don't talk about your opinion of what you *think* government is, but let's look at the facts instead. How is this not a system based on the initiation of aggression, and therefore, violence?
@dooglio You haven't shown anything except for your paranoid fear of the evil, gun-toting, blood-thirsty "gubmint". You are presenting your opinion as fact.
"How is this not a system based on the initiation of aggression, and therefore, violence?"
I think the operative word, there, is "this". You can argue that "this" government is based on violence, but you can't use that to argue that ALL governments are based on violence. That's a non-sequitur. You said ALL governments are violent.
@dooglio Here is a summary of our entire argument, as I understand it. You are making the absurd claim that any society that has rules in place and punishes people for breaking them is a violent, corrupt system. I'm saying that rules and a means to enforce them are how nearly ALL societies maintain order. Again, maybe you can explain to me how a society can maintain order without rules and punishments. Describe this impractical fantasy world to me and MAYBE I'll agree with you.
@dooglio The mere presence of potentially lethal force does not make it a threat to you. This is what I'm talking about when I point out that you're a paranoid nut. There is a world of difference between carrying a gun and having any desire or intention to use it. Furthermore, the possibility of a gun being used doesn't mean it will be used to threaten an innocent person. It could easily be used for defense, as I pointed out last time.
It's okay, dude. You're not as stupid as you think. :)
@dooglio "So I don't have to obey any other their laws and they will leave me be?"
No, you'll still be arrested, but that's not the same thing as threatening you with violence. Let me repeat that, because I don't think that's getting through to you: Threatening to arrest you is not the same thing as threatening to shoot you.
"You like strawman arguments."
I don't like straw-man arguments any more than you like to label...correction, MISlabel an argument instead of tackling it logically.
@dooglio LOL! Really? Okay, I think we've found the heart of your psychosis. Please explain to me how being arrested is the same thing as being threatened with lethal force. Again, just because the arresting officer has a gun doesn't mean he has any intention or desire to use it. The guns is there in case he HAS TO use it, as many police often do because many people - like yourself, perhaps - respond violently to being arrested, but most of them don't. Most people go peacefully.
@dooglio "I would say you are the one suffering, but suffering from delusion."
That's it? No logical refutation of my argument? Just gonna stick your tongue out at me and scuttle off? Real mature.
"What happens if you refuse to comply with the arrest?"
It depends on how you resist. If you're unarmed and you just try to punch them, they might have to take out the batons or a taser or MAYBE the gun, but chances are, you started it by going after them.
@dooglio I just realized something. You're a member of the Tea Party, aren't you? Why else would you equate paying taxes with being robbed at gunpoint? All this time, I actually thought you were some uber-hippie. Now I feel bad. It's just not cool to make fun of the retarded.
@dooglio "You like strawman arguments." How was my representation of your argument inaccurate? You said "Is the threat of lethal force present if you don't pay your taxes?". Did you mean something OTHER than armed agents threatening to shoot you? Not according to your next statement: "But this has nothing to do with thugs initiating aggression." They are not "thugs" and they are not initiating aggression just because they're carrying guns. Pointing those guns at you would be threatening.
@Omeo "The consequences of not paying your tribute to the mob boss are rarely violent and again, they need not be violent at all. Again, just because that sometimes happens in the neighborhood doesn't mean that's the way it has to happen in every territory of the Mafia."
@dooglio You keep using that Q.E.D phrase as if the argument is over. I do not think you know what it means. You're a sharp lad; help me out, here. What's the word for someone who feels the need to sound really smart in front of other people because they're secretly afraid they're an idiot?
@Omeo: "because [the free market has] done such a great job on health care." Don't blame the free market for that. Government screwed up health care through over-regulation, the AMA's monopoly on licensing, and the insurance cartel (which can only be maintained via government coercion).
While I agree with the principles set forth in this video, the fact there are so many spelling errors cannot be overlooked either. It makes it seem like it's a joke when in reality it is truth! Too bad most people will not take the message seriously because of this. Maybe they should consider a remake of it? Sorry about these words, but want to say thanks anyway...it's a righteous message!
While I agree with the principles set forth in this video, the fact there are so many spelling errors cannot be overlooked either. It makes it seem like it's a joke when in reality it is truth! Too bad most people will not take the message seriously because of this. Maybe they should consider a remake of it? Sorry about these words, but want to say thanks anyway...it's a righteous message!
Oberman presents a false choice--that we either have a benevolent government or a corrupt one. Government is corrupt *by its very nature* and should be abolished out right.
@dooglio What a load of empty-headed crap. There is nothing in the concept of government, or Democracy, or even capitalism that makes it corrupt by its nature. It is the men who run these things who are corrupt. Understand that hate and fear have always been more aggressive than peace and love. Hate and fear bully and threaten and extort their way to the top until they're in charge, but that does NOT mean there is anything inherently corrupt about government itself.
@Omeo Would you force your neighbor at gun point to pay an orphanage? Or to make war on another neighbor? If not, why not? If not, then you don't support government.
@dooglio Would I force my neighbor at gunpoint to pay an orphanage? No, but that's not the same thing as paying taxes. I WOULD tell my neighbor that if he wants to enjoy the benefits of living in this society, he'd jolly-well better pitch in; otherwise, he doesn't get to use the roads, send his kid to school, or have a team of fire-fighters stop his house from burning down.
Would I make war against my neighbor? No, but I know there are those who would and I want the government to defend me.
@Omeo "Would I force my neighbor at gunpoint to pay an orphanage? No, but that's not the same thing as paying taxes." Of course it is. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. The government isn't going to say, "oh, well that's okay then--your choice, but you don't get to use the roads." No. Men with guns will eventually come to get you and deal with you violently.
@Omeo: so if you won't use a gun against your neighbor to force him to pay for something he doesn't necessarily want or need, then you don't support government. Q.E.D.
@dooglio Did you not read my last message? Just because I would not personally use a gun doesn't mean I don't support the government compelling people to pitch in. I DO support that. If you want to be a part of this society, you've got to contribute as best you can. You can argue about whether or not fire-arms are the best way to compel people to do that - I would agree that they are not - but it's only fair that people should be required to do their part to fund the amenities they enjoy.
@Omeo So it's your opinion that violence should be used against people to get what you want--you just don't want to get your hands dirty.
I do not think that is the best way, nor do I think people need to be forced to "pitch in." The Mafia forces people to "pitch in" as well. Why aren't you supporting them too?
@dooglio I didn't say anything about approving the use of violence. I merely said that people should be compelled to contribute if they want to enjoy the benefits of a society. As I've said before, this could be done by simply not allowing them to use the amenities they refuse to help pay for. That includes driving on the roads, sending their kids to public schools, using public libraries, the right to call 911 if their house is on fire or if someone break into it.
@Omeo "That includes driving on the roads, sending their kids to public schools, using public libraries, the right to call 911 if their house is on fire or if someone break into it." Excellent. I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for those government-mismanaged boondoggles. As long as the government also removes the laws that prohibit competition with those services, that's great!
@dooglio "I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for those government-mismanaged boondoggles." Who's stopping you? You don't have to send your kids to school. You can home-school them. You don't have to go to libraries. You can live off the grid, if you like. Lots of people like you do it.
@Omeo "Who's stopping you? You don't have to send your kids to school. You can home-school them. You don't have to go to libraries..." Yes that's true. But can I stop paying property, sales, and income tax since I don't want those government services? The answer is, no. Government uses threats of force to extort money out of me. It is factually no different from theft.
@Omeo "because [the free market has] done such a great job on health care." Don't blame the free market for that. Government screwed up health care through over-regulation, the AMA's monopoly on licensing, and the insurance cartel (which can only be maintained via government coercion).
Let's get down to the brass tacks: Should goods and services be brought over the barrel of a gun? Yes or no?
@dooglio "As long as the government also removes the laws that prohibit competition with those services, that's great!" You WANT the private sector to handle those things? Right, because they've done such a great job on health care. You wanna know why the government sometimes fails to do its job properly? it's because half the people IN government don't support it.
@dooglio They vote to take away money and authority away from government agencies and programs, which means those agencies and programs can't do their jobs properly, so then the small-government people - who sabotaged the agencies and programs in the first place - get to say "See? The government can't do anything right." They then use this as an excuse to take more funding and authority away from said agencies and programs and the cycle begins anew.
@dooglio None of this shows that the concept of government itself is inherently corrupt. You're still pointing to OUR government and claiming that ours represents all governments. Ours is certainly not the best example of how to run a government.
@Omeo "I didn't say anything about approving the use of violence." But you did, logically, if you support government at all, since government is all about violence. Even if you don't see it everyday or at all, it operates as the Mafia does. You can live in a town owned by the mob and never see a shot fired. It doesn't mean it isn't based on violence.
@dooglio Okay, this is getting bizarre. I swear I heard this same paranoid bullshit from another guy some months ago. Either your name is Sasha, or your hat is made from the same tin-foil as his is. Forgive me for being insulting, but I get like this when the person I'm talking to is OBVIOUSLY irrational. "Government is all about violence"? Perhaps you can describe to me how you would maintain order in your government-free utopia. I'd love to hear about this fantasy world you live in.
@Omeo: The law of non-contradiction says that A can never not be NOT A. Government is founded on violence, so is therefore violent. Q.E.D. If you argue any other way, YOU are the one who is irrational.
If you would bother to research, there is an entire body of literature on how a government-less society can operate and maintain law and order. And don't say "it won't work because there is no government-less society." That's the fallacy of is/ought.
@dooglio Oh, we have just got all the brains in the world, haven't we? You think just because you can name the fallacies you think I'm using that makes you some kind of rocket surgeon? <-(That's a joke, Dr. Hawking.) I could probably do that, too, but I'm not insecure in my intelligence enough to need to sound like that. (to be continued)
@dooglio But enough with the ad hominems. I think we need to narrow down the list of things we're discussing. We're not getting anywhere going off on these tangents. Why don't we start with your oft-repeated claim that all government is based on violence. I say this is paranoid, melodramatic bullshit. Support your opinion.
@dooglio I notice you didn't address my point about how government exists largely to maintain order. Without an agreed-upon system in place, how can you dispense justice and ensure that everyone's needs are met and that everyone is pitching in? Remember, now, you can't point to how our government fails to do those things to your satisfaction. We're talking about how governments in general and the general concept of government itself fails to do this. That, I believe, was your claim.
@Omeo I will stop at "without an agreed-upon system." There is no "agreed-upon" system because government is created via coercion. In other words, there is no contract between the "taxpayer" and the government--implicit or explicit. I never agreed to their system--it was forced on me from birth.
Governments exist not to maintain order, but to maintain control. This is not a "government by the people for the people" but an oligarchy created for the benefit of the elite.
@dooglio You don't wanna contribute? You don't get to enjoy those things. The only violence that might be required in such a situation might be the threat of violence to keep people who choose not to contribute from using those amenities, but I have to doubt it would get that far.
@Omeo "You don't wanna contribute? You don't get to enjoy those things." Funny. DirectTV and McDonalds make those same arguments. Pay, or you don't get the good or service. There is nothing wrong with that. But that's not how government operates. The taxes that are extorted out of us have no connection with government services. There is no contract, implicit or otherwise.
@dooglio "The taxes that are extorted out of us have no connection with government services. " How do you figure THAT? I'm pretty sure the tax money PAYS for those services. I'm pretty sure that's how this works. If not, please explain to me how those services are paid for and where my tax money is going.
"There is no contract, implicit or otherwise." Not even the Social Contract? Isn't that one of the main things we're talking about?
@Omeo "Not even the Social Contract? Isn't that one of the main things we're talking about?" There is no social contract. A contract entered into via coercion and not of your own free will is not a contract. It is a myth to keep people believing that the government works for us. Ask yourself this: if the master fails to follow the servant's commands, does the servant beat the master? If so, then you are using the wrong names. Reverse master and servant and you've got it right.
@dooglio The government is not robbing you at gun-point, you drama queen. The government does not routinely collect taxes at gunpoint. Do you honestly pay your taxes out of fear of being shot? What kind of paranoid schizophrenic are you? And don't change the subject. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not the nature of government in general is corrupt. You can argue whether or not OUR government is corrupt, but that doesn't mean ANY form of government is inherently corrupt.
@Omeo Ah and now we get down to the ad hominem attacks, the appeal to authority, and the should/is fallacy. Your belief is statism requires that you throw reason out and dismiss facts. Just because you don't see a gun directly used does not mean the threat of violence is not there.
*Any* system based on coercion against peaceful, non-violent, honest people is corrupt. And that is what government is whether you want to face it or not. You are just shooting the messenger.
@dooglio It is not coercion to require people to contribute and violence need not be threatened to enforce that. Every society has rules and punishments for not obeying them. This is how order is maintained. Governments exist to maintain order. It does not make the idea of government barbaric. If you think people are capable of maintaining order without a an agreed-upon system in place, I am not the one who is naive.
Nothings going to change until we throw out the people in politics & hang the private bank of England & the Federal reserve because they are the ones controlling our mainstream politicians & other countrys. Please some one explain the difference in policys from Bush to Obama. Against all the odds i hope Ron Paul will win, if he doesnt or if he changes nothing then surely that time would be the time to do something, even though the time to do something was ages ago. Please dont vote for the same
@iSteppenWolf No its not.. whatis-theplan.(dot)org is for everyone in our planet hence all the world regions... The world collective is here, you are not alone.
For the information of any viewers....This is a mirror...sorry for the creators spelling..but the message is great...please exuse any mistakes ,see through them.Thankyou to the creator,much love.
government will always exist and be needed by the people who are unable to run theyre own affairs....I have been trying to wake people up for several months now and I have just come to the conclusion that FUCK IT some sh-people really need that headmaster figure looming over them...just like a dog only feels comfort when its boundaries are defined...thats not me ..and thats not a fair percentage of people in society..stop squabling over minor differences...its way too late for that behaviour..
cthefreeman 6 months ago
Who is that guy speaking? They've put him in several of their videos.
gerowen 6 months ago
@Omeo: Let's get down to the brass tacks: Should goods and services be brought over the barrel of a gun? Yes or no?
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio I think we need to go back a little further than that. Your question assumes your oft-repeated claim that all government is based on violence. Let's settle THAT little nugget of crazy before we move on to all the other arguments you're basing on it. Support your claim.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo Have 'YOU' ever been beaten up by government court officials?
cthefreeman 6 months ago
@Omeo please,i went into the public gallery of a uk court...refused to stand for the judge and was promplt beaten up and i mean beaten up...no joke i have the scars to prove it,if the state cant get there way they turn primitive.nobody in charge loves a rebel....but rebellion is the human spirit in its most simplest form.rebel my friend and you will find out that all govs are based on violence.......I will continue 'MY' path,for it is 'OUR' destiny.
cthefreeman 6 months ago
@Omeo claim supported...much love..cthefreeman x.
cthefreeman 6 months ago
@Omeo Glad to. Do you know what a contract is? If a contract is made under duress, is it valid? The answer is: no, it is not. Is there a contract between "citizen" and government? The answer is easy--no, because coercion is involved--it's the law! You have to file a tax return or face jail time.
What happens when you fail to follow a law? Do they ask you nicely to comply, and if not, have a nice day? Or do armed men and women come and manhandle you away? Is this not violence?
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio Once again, being required to follow the rules of a society is not violence. Punishing those who violate the laws is not corrupt. This is how all societies are run. If you know a way to maintain order without rules and punishments for breaking them, I'd like to hear it. That research you referred to earlier is idealistic nonsense that doesn't jive with human nature. While most humans are at least civil to each other, some are not and it is because of those people that rules exist.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio Punishment for breaking the rules need not be violent. Just because it often is in modern society does not mean it MUST be. Again, you're taking some bad examples and claiming they represent the nature of government, speaking of ad hominems. Just because armed men may show up to arrest you doesn't mean they are threatening to shoot you. It's entirely possible to be arrested peacefully. In fact, I'm pretty sure that happens a lot.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio Those armed men and women probably have those guns to defend themselves in case YOU get violent. Non-tax-paying, anti-government people like you have a bit of a reputation for being well-armed lunatics who will try to shoot any government agents who might show up to arrest or even talk to you. Showing up armed to arrest you is NOT the same thing as threatening you with violence.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo No one likes a bully, right? Why? Because a bully uses the threat of force to ensure compliance. Is this not violent? So he doesn't have to throw a punch--but he's bigger and mean looking and he terrifies you so you cowtow. And you would say that it isn't violent?
The government operates in the same manner. Pay or face violent consequences, the degree of which rises as you apply resistance.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio The consequences of not paying your taxes are rarely violent and, again, they need not be violent at all. Again, just because that sometimes happens in our society doesn't mean that's the way it has to happen is every society with a system of government.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo Is the threat of lethal force present if you don't pay your taxes? What part of that is not violent?
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio I would accept reason if I thought you were being reasonable, but you're not. You are quite clearly a paranoid schizophrenic. What I am defending here isn't so much government itself, but any system used to maintain order in a society, which tends to take the form of what we call a government in almost every case.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo Don't dodge the question. I have successfully shown that 1) government is based on violence and 2) it follows that it is corrupt by its very nature. What part of my reasoning do you have a problem with? Don't talk about your opinion of what you *think* government is, but let's look at the facts instead. How is this not a system based on the initiation of aggression, and therefore, violence?
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio You haven't shown anything except for your paranoid fear of the evil, gun-toting, blood-thirsty "gubmint". You are presenting your opinion as fact.
"How is this not a system based on the initiation of aggression, and therefore, violence?"
I think the operative word, there, is "this". You can argue that "this" government is based on violence, but you can't use that to argue that ALL governments are based on violence. That's a non-sequitur. You said ALL governments are violent.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio Here is a summary of our entire argument, as I understand it. You are making the absurd claim that any society that has rules in place and punishes people for breaking them is a violent, corrupt system. I'm saying that rules and a means to enforce them are how nearly ALL societies maintain order. Again, maybe you can explain to me how a society can maintain order without rules and punishments. Describe this impractical fantasy world to me and MAYBE I'll agree with you.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio The mere presence of potentially lethal force does not make it a threat to you. This is what I'm talking about when I point out that you're a paranoid nut. There is a world of difference between carrying a gun and having any desire or intention to use it. Furthermore, the possibility of a gun being used doesn't mean it will be used to threaten an innocent person. It could easily be used for defense, as I pointed out last time.
It's okay, dude. You're not as stupid as you think. :)
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "The mere presence of potentially lethal force does not make it a threat to you."
It doesn't? So I don't have to obey any other their laws and they will leave me be?
"There is a world of difference between carrying a gun and having any desire or intention to use it."
You like strawman arguments.
"It could easily be used for defense, as I pointed out last time."
You're making a great case for individual gun rights. But this has nothing to do with thugs initiating aggression.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio "So I don't have to obey any other their laws and they will leave me be?"
No, you'll still be arrested, but that's not the same thing as threatening you with violence. Let me repeat that, because I don't think that's getting through to you: Threatening to arrest you is not the same thing as threatening to shoot you.
"You like strawman arguments."
I don't like straw-man arguments any more than you like to label...correction, MISlabel an argument instead of tackling it logically.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "No, you'll still be arrested, but that's not the same thing as threatening you with violence."
Wow! It's not? So a square is not a square, but it is really a circle? Thank you so much for educating me. 2 + 2 = 5! Black is white, up is down!
What was I thinking? You are so smart Omeo--thank you for helping me understand reason!
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio LOL! Really? Okay, I think we've found the heart of your psychosis. Please explain to me how being arrested is the same thing as being threatened with lethal force. Again, just because the arresting officer has a gun doesn't mean he has any intention or desire to use it. The guns is there in case he HAS TO use it, as many police often do because many people - like yourself, perhaps - respond violently to being arrested, but most of them don't. Most people go peacefully.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo What happens if you refuse to comply with the arrest?
dooglio 6 months ago
@Omeo I would say you are the one suffering, but suffering from delusion.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio "I would say you are the one suffering, but suffering from delusion."
That's it? No logical refutation of my argument? Just gonna stick your tongue out at me and scuttle off? Real mature.
"What happens if you refuse to comply with the arrest?"
It depends on how you resist. If you're unarmed and you just try to punch them, they might have to take out the batons or a taser or MAYBE the gun, but chances are, you started it by going after them.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio I just realized something. You're a member of the Tea Party, aren't you? Why else would you equate paying taxes with being robbed at gunpoint? All this time, I actually thought you were some uber-hippie. Now I feel bad. It's just not cool to make fun of the retarded.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio "You like strawman arguments." How was my representation of your argument inaccurate? You said "Is the threat of lethal force present if you don't pay your taxes?". Did you mean something OTHER than armed agents threatening to shoot you? Not according to your next statement: "But this has nothing to do with thugs initiating aggression." They are not "thugs" and they are not initiating aggression just because they're carrying guns. Pointing those guns at you would be threatening.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "The consequences of not paying your tribute to the mob boss are rarely violent and again, they need not be violent at all. Again, just because that sometimes happens in the neighborhood doesn't mean that's the way it has to happen in every territory of the Mafia."
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio You keep using that Q.E.D phrase as if the argument is over. I do not think you know what it means. You're a sharp lad; help me out, here. What's the word for someone who feels the need to sound really smart in front of other people because they're secretly afraid they're an idiot?
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo The argument is not over for you because you do not accept reason. You would prefer to persist in your faith that government is benign.
And stop with the ad hominem!
dooglio 6 months ago
@Omeo I believe I have succeeded in supporting my claim. Q.E.D. Government is violent because its methods of enforcing compliance are violent.
dooglio 6 months ago
@Omeo: "because [the free market has] done such a great job on health care." Don't blame the free market for that. Government screwed up health care through over-regulation, the AMA's monopoly on licensing, and the insurance cartel (which can only be maintained via government coercion).
dooglio 6 months ago
While I agree with the principles set forth in this video, the fact there are so many spelling errors cannot be overlooked either. It makes it seem like it's a joke when in reality it is truth! Too bad most people will not take the message seriously because of this. Maybe they should consider a remake of it? Sorry about these words, but want to say thanks anyway...it's a righteous message!
MichelleTRS 6 months ago
While I agree with the principles set forth in this video, the fact there are so many spelling errors cannot be overlooked either. It makes it seem like it's a joke when in reality it is truth! Too bad most people will not take the message seriously because of this. Maybe they should consider a remake of it? Sorry about these words, but want to say thanks anyway...it's a righteous message!
MichelleTRS 6 months ago
These are the guys who Expect Us to follow The Plan and the fucking idiots can't spell. Fuck the Plan.
IAn0nimous 6 months ago 4
Oberman presents a false choice--that we either have a benevolent government or a corrupt one. Government is corrupt *by its very nature* and should be abolished out right.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio What a load of empty-headed crap. There is nothing in the concept of government, or Democracy, or even capitalism that makes it corrupt by its nature. It is the men who run these things who are corrupt. Understand that hate and fear have always been more aggressive than peace and love. Hate and fear bully and threaten and extort their way to the top until they're in charge, but that does NOT mean there is anything inherently corrupt about government itself.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo Would you force your neighbor at gun point to pay an orphanage? Or to make war on another neighbor? If not, why not? If not, then you don't support government.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio Would I force my neighbor at gunpoint to pay an orphanage? No, but that's not the same thing as paying taxes. I WOULD tell my neighbor that if he wants to enjoy the benefits of living in this society, he'd jolly-well better pitch in; otherwise, he doesn't get to use the roads, send his kid to school, or have a team of fire-fighters stop his house from burning down.
Would I make war against my neighbor? No, but I know there are those who would and I want the government to defend me.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "Would I force my neighbor at gunpoint to pay an orphanage? No, but that's not the same thing as paying taxes." Of course it is. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. The government isn't going to say, "oh, well that's okay then--your choice, but you don't get to use the roads." No. Men with guns will eventually come to get you and deal with you violently.
dooglio 6 months ago
Comment removed
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo: so if you won't use a gun against your neighbor to force him to pay for something he doesn't necessarily want or need, then you don't support government. Q.E.D.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio Did you not read my last message? Just because I would not personally use a gun doesn't mean I don't support the government compelling people to pitch in. I DO support that. If you want to be a part of this society, you've got to contribute as best you can. You can argue about whether or not fire-arms are the best way to compel people to do that - I would agree that they are not - but it's only fair that people should be required to do their part to fund the amenities they enjoy.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo So it's your opinion that violence should be used against people to get what you want--you just don't want to get your hands dirty.
I do not think that is the best way, nor do I think people need to be forced to "pitch in." The Mafia forces people to "pitch in" as well. Why aren't you supporting them too?
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio I didn't say anything about approving the use of violence. I merely said that people should be compelled to contribute if they want to enjoy the benefits of a society. As I've said before, this could be done by simply not allowing them to use the amenities they refuse to help pay for. That includes driving on the roads, sending their kids to public schools, using public libraries, the right to call 911 if their house is on fire or if someone break into it.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "That includes driving on the roads, sending their kids to public schools, using public libraries, the right to call 911 if their house is on fire or if someone break into it." Excellent. I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for those government-mismanaged boondoggles. As long as the government also removes the laws that prohibit competition with those services, that's great!
dooglio 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dooglio "I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for those government-mismanaged boondoggles." Who's stopping you? You don't have to send your kids to school. You can home-school them. You don't have to go to libraries. You can live off the grid, if you like. Lots of people like you do it.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "Who's stopping you? You don't have to send your kids to school. You can home-school them. You don't have to go to libraries..." Yes that's true. But can I stop paying property, sales, and income tax since I don't want those government services? The answer is, no. Government uses threats of force to extort money out of me. It is factually no different from theft.
dooglio 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Omeo "because [the free market has] done such a great job on health care." Don't blame the free market for that. Government screwed up health care through over-regulation, the AMA's monopoly on licensing, and the insurance cartel (which can only be maintained via government coercion).
Let's get down to the brass tacks: Should goods and services be brought over the barrel of a gun? Yes or no?
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio "As long as the government also removes the laws that prohibit competition with those services, that's great!" You WANT the private sector to handle those things? Right, because they've done such a great job on health care. You wanna know why the government sometimes fails to do its job properly? it's because half the people IN government don't support it.
Omeo 6 months ago
Comment removed
dooglio 6 months ago
Comment removed
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio They vote to take away money and authority away from government agencies and programs, which means those agencies and programs can't do their jobs properly, so then the small-government people - who sabotaged the agencies and programs in the first place - get to say "See? The government can't do anything right." They then use this as an excuse to take more funding and authority away from said agencies and programs and the cycle begins anew.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio None of this shows that the concept of government itself is inherently corrupt. You're still pointing to OUR government and claiming that ours represents all governments. Ours is certainly not the best example of how to run a government.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "I didn't say anything about approving the use of violence." But you did, logically, if you support government at all, since government is all about violence. Even if you don't see it everyday or at all, it operates as the Mafia does. You can live in a town owned by the mob and never see a shot fired. It doesn't mean it isn't based on violence.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio Okay, this is getting bizarre. I swear I heard this same paranoid bullshit from another guy some months ago. Either your name is Sasha, or your hat is made from the same tin-foil as his is. Forgive me for being insulting, but I get like this when the person I'm talking to is OBVIOUSLY irrational. "Government is all about violence"? Perhaps you can describe to me how you would maintain order in your government-free utopia. I'd love to hear about this fantasy world you live in.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo: The law of non-contradiction says that A can never not be NOT A. Government is founded on violence, so is therefore violent. Q.E.D. If you argue any other way, YOU are the one who is irrational.
If you would bother to research, there is an entire body of literature on how a government-less society can operate and maintain law and order. And don't say "it won't work because there is no government-less society." That's the fallacy of is/ought.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio Oh, we have just got all the brains in the world, haven't we? You think just because you can name the fallacies you think I'm using that makes you some kind of rocket surgeon? <-(That's a joke, Dr. Hawking.) I could probably do that, too, but I'm not insecure in my intelligence enough to need to sound like that. (to be continued)
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio But enough with the ad hominems. I think we need to narrow down the list of things we're discussing. We're not getting anywhere going off on these tangents. Why don't we start with your oft-repeated claim that all government is based on violence. I say this is paranoid, melodramatic bullshit. Support your opinion.
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio I notice you didn't address my point about how government exists largely to maintain order. Without an agreed-upon system in place, how can you dispense justice and ensure that everyone's needs are met and that everyone is pitching in? Remember, now, you can't point to how our government fails to do those things to your satisfaction. We're talking about how governments in general and the general concept of government itself fails to do this. That, I believe, was your claim.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo I will stop at "without an agreed-upon system." There is no "agreed-upon" system because government is created via coercion. In other words, there is no contract between the "taxpayer" and the government--implicit or explicit. I never agreed to their system--it was forced on me from birth.
Governments exist not to maintain order, but to maintain control. This is not a "government by the people for the people" but an oligarchy created for the benefit of the elite.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio You don't wanna contribute? You don't get to enjoy those things. The only violence that might be required in such a situation might be the threat of violence to keep people who choose not to contribute from using those amenities, but I have to doubt it would get that far.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "You don't wanna contribute? You don't get to enjoy those things." Funny. DirectTV and McDonalds make those same arguments. Pay, or you don't get the good or service. There is nothing wrong with that. But that's not how government operates. The taxes that are extorted out of us have no connection with government services. There is no contract, implicit or otherwise.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio "The taxes that are extorted out of us have no connection with government services. " How do you figure THAT? I'm pretty sure the tax money PAYS for those services. I'm pretty sure that's how this works. If not, please explain to me how those services are paid for and where my tax money is going.
"There is no contract, implicit or otherwise." Not even the Social Contract? Isn't that one of the main things we're talking about?
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo "Not even the Social Contract? Isn't that one of the main things we're talking about?" There is no social contract. A contract entered into via coercion and not of your own free will is not a contract. It is a myth to keep people believing that the government works for us. Ask yourself this: if the master fails to follow the servant's commands, does the servant beat the master? If so, then you are using the wrong names. Reverse master and servant and you've got it right.
dooglio 6 months ago
@dooglio The government is not robbing you at gun-point, you drama queen. The government does not routinely collect taxes at gunpoint. Do you honestly pay your taxes out of fear of being shot? What kind of paranoid schizophrenic are you? And don't change the subject. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not the nature of government in general is corrupt. You can argue whether or not OUR government is corrupt, but that doesn't mean ANY form of government is inherently corrupt.
Omeo 6 months ago
@Omeo Ah and now we get down to the ad hominem attacks, the appeal to authority, and the should/is fallacy. Your belief is statism requires that you throw reason out and dismiss facts. Just because you don't see a gun directly used does not mean the threat of violence is not there.
*Any* system based on coercion against peaceful, non-violent, honest people is corrupt. And that is what government is whether you want to face it or not. You are just shooting the messenger.
dooglio 6 months ago
Comment removed
Omeo 6 months ago
@dooglio It is not coercion to require people to contribute and violence need not be threatened to enforce that. Every society has rules and punishments for not obeying them. This is how order is maintained. Governments exist to maintain order. It does not make the idea of government barbaric. If you think people are capable of maintaining order without a an agreed-upon system in place, I am not the one who is naive.
Omeo 6 months ago
Great Video, (its the "Truth" plain & simple)! Southwest Ontario Canada go to "what is - the plan. org"! Find each other, thanks.
48alfaone 6 months ago
Nothings going to change until we throw out the people in politics & hang the private bank of England & the Federal reserve because they are the ones controlling our mainstream politicians & other countrys. Please some one explain the difference in policys from Bush to Obama. Against all the odds i hope Ron Paul will win, if he doesnt or if he changes nothing then surely that time would be the time to do something, even though the time to do something was ages ago. Please dont vote for the same
wiggledytoes 6 months ago
The lettering was too light I could bearly read it.
Excelion333 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iSteppenWolf No its not.. whatis-theplan.(dot)org is for everyone in our planet hence all the world regions... The world collective is here, you are not alone.
M0n0liths 6 months ago
Spread this, Get it Viral!
MoarGhosts24 6 months ago
For the information of any viewers....This is a mirror...sorry for the creators spelling..but the message is great...please exuse any mistakes ,see through them.Thankyou to the creator,much love.
cthefreeman 6 months ago 3
oops...many typos, guys. Spell check before publishing. Otherwise thanks for sharing
iREPEACE 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iSteppenWolf Wrong. This is world wide.
oexnorth 6 months ago
fuck yeah, brother.
oexnorth 6 months ago
FREEDOM FOREVER!
runerockgod7 6 months ago 9
comming?
AngelsInFlight22 6 months ago
This is happening
MrErbdla 6 months ago
i support anonymous
81dMo 6 months ago 13
damn. change the license for this so i can mirror. I'll give you credit
4v3ng3d 6 months ago
the video is great, but you made a lot of spelling errors in the texts :/
buckoven 6 months ago
@buckoven But you understood it.....yeh?
cthefreeman 6 months ago 2
@cthefreeman Learn to spell, but also learn not to be so melodramatic. I couldn't even make it a minute in.
Lodsiek 6 months ago
@Lodsiek thankyou for watching..bless you.x
cthefreeman 6 months ago
Can anyone give me the name of the guy who is talking in the video ?
KHEMISSETCITYFANS 6 months ago
@KHEMISSETCITYFANS Keith Obermann...hope I spelled that right..
stopthepolicestate 6 months ago
Comment removed
johnjnesbit 6 months ago
@stopthepolicestate yes...spelling is so crucial and critical...a few spelling mistakes and the message is lost...ROFL x
cthefreeman 6 months ago 2
@stopthepolicestate : Thanks and Peace from Morocco
KHEMISSETCITYFANS 6 months ago