Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Asking who would build the roads if government doesn't is like asking who would pick the cotton if slaves didn't.

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 5:09 a.m. EST by voluntaryist (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Who cares how the cotton gets picked or roads get built? Slavery is immoral, and so is coercive government. Anything forced upon an individual is immoral.

Individuals can band together voluntarily to achieve what they want how they want as long as they don't force other individuals to participate. Force is immoral.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by EndGluttony (507) 10 years ago

You hate America and are a selfish fuck. I hope you get carjacked and there is no one around to hear you cry for FREE HELP, I need FREE HELP.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume (1711–1776), is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's Law and Hume's Guillotine.~wiki

Here, we have an is-ought problem. The writer starts with Slavery is immoral and arrives at the ought that coercive government ought to be as well. But it is not at all obvious how he got there.

“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace

[-] 2 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago

In my area roads are built by private contractors. There are state and local govt employees who do maintenance (filling potholes, plowing, mowing, etc.).

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Same here, the state and feds both contract out to private entities. Hell, even to pick up trash and mow the grass along side of them, same thing.

It's not like federal prisoners do any of this.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

It is called a social contract. Yes, we care how the roads are built and where they are built.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Men typically build roads that are IN FACT found in states, both men and roads that is.

Why would this, in your mind, change if our republic proper was restored?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

I'm not interested in Ron Paul. I am interested in dealing with the task at hand. Like it or not this is a social contract.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

My question has nothing to do with Dr. PauI. If our democratic republic was restored, why is it you believe our roads would be a problem or that any "Social Contract" would not be able to be dealt with between the states?

I simply cannot fathom your reasoning.

btw.. Chantico and Kerberos said hello.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

FROG! There are other meanings of the word corporation. It IS in fact the same constitution as before 1871.

So, you did go with Chantico. That's cool.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Check this out...... it's an easy read and Mr Mitchell is for real. i'm sure he'd even take a phone call from you.



[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Yeah, they are both coming to their names and seem to like them.

They are not the same Constitutions, nor were all the prior the amendments kept intact. And do you really not acknowledge what FDR signed off on in 1933 had devastating impact on the color and nature of DC's government, the citizens and all property in the United States?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

It is the same Constitution. Have you not heard the term municipal corporation?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Have you never seen this Document? I have.



I promise.

Read The Federal Zone, feel free to fact and record check. You should find it very revealing.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Ok, as long as you think so.

Pray tell, what is your version of what happened in 1871 and why?

Same for 1933, some two decades after the Fed guys finally set up their bank to control the United States currency?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

It WAS the consolidation of smaller towns into a city and for the same reason that much is consolidated-sharing of resources.

I cannot go down this road with you. It is faulty all the way down the line. This was not a conspiracy.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Who said conspiracy? Both were bankruptcies. Do you truly confuse a well documented bankruptcy, or two, with a conspiracy?

You are aware that our first Constitution was a bankruptcy pact between the colonies to repay the millions of gold backed money borrowed to fight the Revolutionary War, right? You know that Andy Jackson got that one paid in full and discharged, right?

I mean you do realize the civil war's cost has only been exceeded, by all other wars fought since, only in the last ten years? No other wars fought since, totaled together have exceeded the number of lives lost, right? You do realize the United States has never repaid that debt?

You do know what was put up as collateral in 1871, right?

And you do know when it was reorganized in 1933, what was put up for collateral and the terms of the repayment, right?

Why DID FDR make a demand for all the citizens to turn in their gold?

No conspiracy Darlin, just facts, and they aren't pretty.

You really don't think all these wars we fight cost nothing, do you?

You don't think all the well paid US workers, making war machines to be destroyed actually created all the wealth necessary to finance all these wars, do you?

Where did the money come from when we had to borrow it prior to the existence of The Federal Reserve?

Where does the debt we borrow now come from and what secures those loans?

Do you think that the United States being a member of the United Nations and IMF is voluntary?

Ask somebody you trust that has been well educated in the late 50's or went to a non-federally funded school afterwards. I'm not telling any stories.

Are you in your 30's? Just guessing.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 10 years ago

Funny that you would post this comment as a thread.... For those interested, this is how it came about....


[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 10 years ago

This is the most retarded, poorly articulated, un-substantiated Troll post that I have encountered yet.

Who cares how the cotton gets picked or roads get built?

The 99%!

That's who!

People talk a lot about "Freedom"...

But freedom to do what exactly?

Own stuff?

For really poor people, "economic freedom" is meaningless. For them, it's just freedom to starve.

For all you right-wingers, tea-partiers and libertarians out there who whine about constantly about taxes and "punishing job-creators" (yeah right), be thankful that the government is keeping the poor well enough fed that they don't decide to storm your gated communities.

To all of you protesters that consider yourselves "Anarchists", please remember: Big Business LOVES anarchy because it means that there are no safeguards in-place to keep corporations and banks from riding roughshod over everyone else.

This is humorously illustrated as follows:


Government's proper role is to protect the people and to regulate economic interests. Not protect economic interests and regulate the people - which is what's now happening.

If you get rid of government, you get rid of our only safeguard.

We have to take government back from Wall St. and put it in the hands of The People.

Meanwhile, arguing about the relative "morality" of "wealth redistribution" via "force" is completely meaningless in a world where the 1% get to cajole and intimidate the 99%, whether it by through physical force a la your friendly neighborhood gestapo / foot-soldier or the economic coercion and manipulation of Wall St.

"Forcing" the poor, the middle class and those without a voice to endure THIS kind of "force" is what is truly, TRULY immoral!!!