Status Quo Force Consent

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

« Reply #7 on: Today at 12:53:22 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove

Yea? Why tax it?

Why not free it all the way?

Ah… Because we are used to the status quo that marijuana is illegal. Then we thought, why not legalize and tax it. A moderate approach. Now this doesn’t look like government punishing marijuana smokers. This seems like government allowing marijuana.

Game theory says that the difference between threaten and promise is the status quo. Unfortunately, it’s also the difference between force and consent. The difference is, whose right and whose obligation people have to start with. Once we agree that government has right to run our life, then force does become consent and via versa.

The most obvious way to see this is to see how subsidy is effectively forcing people to accept the subsidy. Subsidy is equivalent with government taxing (fining) everyone that don’t grab the subsidy after giving some money to all equally. So public school is effectively forcing of people to go to public school.

Of course, if we believe that any kids have the right for some decent education, this is not something very strange. Kids right for education effectively means everyone’s else obligation to pay for those. The same way, individuals’ right for freedom, means effectively everybody’s obligation to defend those freedom.

Reasserting my money my right, would solve those dilemma that public schools are indeed force rather than consent.

The same way we are used to the status quo that man pay for women, irrelevant of whether the woman pick him as mate (as the case for welfare checks), irrelevant of whether it is his child (in the case of alimony).

(and hence non consensual and consensual) is just the status quo. If the status quo is men has to pay up anyway to girls. Then prostitution is indeed force because the man, which has no right for his own money, threaten to not pay girls that don’t fuck him. This is the argument that is used by anti prostitution bigot.

There’s some truth in it, I must admit. We simply need to differentiate what’s wrong, from what’s inherently vaque. Again reasserting that man has right for his money would solve the dilemma. The problem is you don’t have right for your own money right? You’re too weak.

Libertarian believes that the status quo is we are all in NAP(non aggression pact) and all of us has obligation to maintain that NAP.
Feminist believe that the status quo is all women are free to choose whoever man they want, and expect every other males to pay for the child regardless of it’s their children or not.
Anarchist (and satanists?) believe that we’re all in free for all status quo and if you want to be free, you either have to stand up for my self, or get people to stand up for you. No body is obligated to help you out of morality sake.

I used to be a libertarian, but I start thinking that the anarchist have some truth in it.

Your right is not always what legislators decide. Your right depends on how much power you have and can expand through politically correct means. For example, a gun hidden on your sleeves, means you have a right to walk on any shady town. No gun, well, proceed at your own risk. Money in off shore bank account, means right over that money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.