Anwar al-Awlaki Killed In Yemen Air Strike

[Glocktogo]

My statement is not untrue. I own myself. I never ceded anything to the government. By the threat of force that the government, on your behalf, brings against me I have my property (money) taken from me each payday involuntarily. Many others have Liberty squashed by the war on drugs. Or they are murdered in a war on terror without due process thus depriving them of the ultimate gift of the Creator... life.

If you want to give up your sovereignty, go for it. Your choice. But why demand and force those of us who don't into your camp? And use the government to do this? Use the threat of bodily harm and imprisonment to make me comply? Have you not read Bastiat's "The Law"?

Stupid can't be cured. I don't care about the sheep. Let them suffer their fate. The ability to educate themselves is available if they want to learn.

As for these consequences... what are they? Enlighten me. As an aside to your last sentence... please stop assuming what I know or don't know.

As for the Bible... it's a history book. Some good ideas pertaining to morality but other than that meaningless.

No one is forcing you to do anything. You choose to live in a society with rules and laws, therefore you voluntarily subject yourself to them. Awlaki didn't care for the laws of this society, so he picked up his stuff and went to a place where there were no laws. You are free to choose the same. So long as you do not actively plot to harm the United States, you will never hear another word from it nor will you be subject to any force it may wield.

Unlike Awlaki, you choose to rail against a society while continuing to enjoy the amenities and conveniences it provides. Every choice has consequences, including exercising the right to not choose. Any other interpretation is whimsical fantasy on your part.

 

[vvvvvvv]

It's not completely rational.

It is rational for people to make the conclusion that their vote doesn't count when they consider that their single vote has a very minuscule amount of potential to change the outcome of an election.

 

[beast1989]

I understand where both sides are coming from. Whether we have the right to choose or not it seems that no matter what option we choose will screw us in some way or other. Back to the sidelines for me to finish my

 

[dutchwrangler]

People have every right to limit their own freedom for the benefit of everyone. I choose not to murder, cheat, or steal. These are freedoms that I don't mind giving up in order to coexist peacefully with others. If you don't like the particular freedoms that a given society has chosen to limit, then exercise your sovereignty to live somewhere more agreeable.



Quite the statement coming from such a "moralist". Typical libertarian "screw everyone but me" garbage. You can have your self serving morality. As for me, I'll continue to choose to grant everyone around me the same rights that I have.



In keeping with this thread, there's the freedom to declare yourself the enemy of any nation you so choose and take up arms against it. The consequence for this individual was death. He knew the possibility existed that his actions would lead to his death and he committed them anyway. He may be a deranged terrorist, but kudos for him for knowing the potential consequences of his actions and standing up for his belief. He lived and died free.

To reference your hero Ron Paul, you can choose to not have health insurance. If you do this, the consequence could be that something bad happens that you can't pay for and you suffer/die as a result.



Granted. I will never again assume that you are intelligent enough to understand that actions have consequences.



Totally your call if that's what you want to believe.

My rights end at your nose. I have no right to harm your property or steal from you. Thus I give up nothing in the way of rights. We both retain our freedom. I'm not a moralist. Again, you're asserting you know me based on what I post here. Doesn't add anything. I am also not a libertarian. Again, another assertion on your part. If a person takes up arms against a group that has initiated force then it's self defense. Who started all of this interventionism in world affairs? I have no heros thus another assertion. Perhaps instead of constantly asserting what I believe you just ask what I believe. I realize that the words I type and post sometimes lose there meaning. I'm not a word smith by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[soonerwings]

It is rational for people to make the conclusion that their vote doesn't count when they consider that their single vote has a very minuscule amount of potential to change the outcome of an election.

Miniscule though it may be, the potential is still there. As more people pool their potential, the more likely a given outcome. Here's the mathematical definition of rational: "In mathematics, a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient or fraction a/b of two integers, with the denominator b not equal to zero." Since those nice mathematical power numbers you posted are all rational, you can conclude that the fact that every vote has the potential to impact an election is indeed rational. To think that your vote has a power of 0 is mathematically irrational by definition.

 

[dutchwrangler]

No one is forcing you to do anything. You choose to live in a society with rules and laws, therefore you voluntarily subject yourself to them. Awlaki didn't care for the laws of this society, so he picked up his stuff and went to a place where there were no laws. You are free to choose the same. So long as you do not actively plot to harm the United States, you will never hear another word from it nor will you be subject to any force it may wield.

Unlike Awlaki, you choose to rail against a society while continuing to enjoy the amenities and conveniences it provides. Every choice has consequences, including exercising the right to not choose. Any other interpretation is whimsical fantasy on your part.

And whimsical fantasy is held by those who believe that the Constitution protects them from those in power. It's a Utopian fantasy that has began decaying since the day after it came into being. Like Communism, people seem to think that if we just get the right people in there, it'll all be good. Unless angels are elected, it's not going to happen.

You're correct in that I freely choose to live in the US. I knew what I was getting when I got here. I'm here for the weather mostly. Freedom doesn't exist here (or anywhere for that matter) so that really wasn't a factor in my choice. So what's your reason for staying?

 

[vvvvvvv]

Miniscule though it may be, the potential is still there. As more people pool their potential, the more likely a given outcome. Here's the mathematical definition of rational: "In mathematics, a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient or fraction a/b of two integers, with the denominator b not equal to zero." Since those nice mathematical power numbers you posted are all rational, you can conclude that the fact that every vote has the potential to impact an election is indeed rational. To think that your vote has a power of 0 is mathematically irrational by definition.

I agree. But that conclusion requires a level of intelligence well above the average voter.

The average voter responds only to marketing hyperbole.

 

[soonerwings]

I'm not a moralist.

For someone that's not a moralist, you reference morals A LOT in your posts.

I am also not a libertarian. Again, another assertion on your part

I never asserted that you were a libertarian, just that you spew their rhetoric. Whether you borrow from their school of thought or coincidentally believe much of what they believe is of little consequence.

I have no heros thus another assertion.

Not an assertion, just sarcasm.

I'm not a word smith by any stretch of the imagination.

That's because you're one of those freaky deaky dutch. Yes...I referenced Goldmember.

 

[soonerwings]

I agree. But that conclusion requires a level of intelligence well above the average voter.

The average voter responds only to marketing hyperbole.

Then they are by no means acting rationally when deciding that their vote is worthless.

 

[dutchwrangler]

That's because you're one of those freaky deaky dutch. Yes...I referenced Goldmember.

And this is what it comes down to? Personal attacks? You're now in the compay of JBBooks & PurpleHaze. I'm sure this violates the forum's TOS. So it goes...