Thread:Johnny-Swing/@comment-31967447-20180928220535/@comment-31674709-20181001215226

" They would not be because they already have a more developed state to take care of you. As such they are enemies of the state. "

Enemies of the state uh, loving the dividing notions.

" I do not determine but reality itself determined. They had their Fatherland and their King and they betrayed them for their own selfish interests. "

In terms:

"No no no no it wasn't ME who determinted it, it was just my subjective view of reality that determinted it!"

Yeah, i don't know who you think you're fooling at this time but even the most brainlets of all wouldn't even take the bait.

They betrayed? How did they betray for their interests? What Fatherland? What King? Did they sign up a contract with the King to not betray them?

They didn't, following your interests ONLY means betraying when you're showing no loyalty to someone else.

And in this case there was no sign or contract of loyalty between them and the king and the "fatherland"

">Ethnicity is irrelevant, being "British" or not doesn't mean they have an "obligation" to the King of Great Britain (Of which you can't justify).

It does."

It does but you just leave it there. No explaination nor argument of "why it does", just leave it here.

Beautiful.

" Politics are not economics, when will you finally understand? They weren't equals to sign treaties."

It wasn't about politics nor economics, it was about if they consented and agreed to show loyalty to them or not.

"It is their property but the state has right to take it away. They are subjects of the state."

What gives the state the right to violate the natural rights of others? Why would a sane person ever defend the violation of the rights of individuals in the first place?

When did they agree to be "subjects of the state?" Did i agree to be a subject of the state?

The state having a "right" to violate the rights of other IS A CONTRADICTION!

"Sorry but you didn't even analyze the meaning of what I wrote."

Does it even have a meaning?

"Yes is is"

Please refrain from your mindset.

"Yes. And nobody forced you to attack your co-citizens doing their work."

Serious question, what point did you reach where you have to come up with this made up bullshit? Was this even part of the topic? Did someone talked about attacking co-citizens?

But even better, does it refute what i've said? No, made up stuff doesn't refute it. You have to argue why the state has powers which nobody else has, which is supersitiouss and contradictory in nature.

"No, it isn't."

Preceeds by believing the state has magical powers which nobody else has because you said so.

"Because your neighbour is equal to you and the state is above you. That's why."

May i ask you in what sense is the state "above me", how is it "above me" and how does it justify violating me and my rights?

"We are a part of the state."

I didn't agreed to be a citizen, and we aren't government employees or politicians.

Semantics are rolling over their grave. And no, this won't justify the state violating the rights of individuals.

Care to refute my arguments instead of saying irrelevant blablablablas?

"No, explain me."

Maybe it has been explained when you say yourself that the state has the "right" to violate the rights of others because the state is the state so.

It's soo much contradictory nonsense i don't even know how do you hold such a belief honestly...

"Becuae you're not an official. Officials are the ones who represent state. You do not. They will, or at least should use their power for the greater good. You would use your powe for your individual good. "

"Sorry Smy, you can't violate the rights of others because we didn't told you so you could, but this official has the right to violate you anytime he wants because we tell you so."

Representing the state? More like being affiliated with a criminal organization.

And no, again, it won't justify the violation of rights.

Also''' in the name of all sanity, can you stop using the "greater good" as an argument? '''Even the most mentally disabled person doesn't even buy it.

And no, i use my wills and capacities for whatever i want.

"Tell me how "personal sovereignty" is not a bogagoo fairy idea."

I didn't mention personal sovereignity.

" I didn't. Goveabe said the British were bad becuse of monarchy, I explained him how without monarchy another nation is just as bad. "

You didn't, we don't need monarchies, there are good countries that are republics and bad monarchies.

"Do you disagree?"

Yes, monarchs aren't leaders of republics, just how can't you realize this contradiction?

Talk 21:52, October 1, 2018 (UTC)