There are no states, there are no governments, there are no citizens

Some of his holistic points are valid, but his first "Tax is not the law" anecdote is both incorrect and somewhat irrelevant to his points.

From U.S. history, we know Congress passed the Internal Revenue Code as a law, while the IRS was the agency established to reside over it. The judge he mentions must either be fictional or equally ignorant.

 

never realized sythe was mentally challenged before

 

I guess they figure its your civil duties to pay taxes. Taxes do help our country stay running.

 

Yes

Well, I suppose according to your definitions, the law doesn't exist at all. So none?

I'm not a Constitutionalist.

Paper is paper. People are people. Thoughts are thoughts. They are not all the same.

I suppose if you garnered enough public support it would be possible, but seeing as you don't believe in the collective, probably not.

Shut up.

Both humans and banans boil down to carbon, nitrogen, and water. I don't find this to be particularly valid.

You probably didn't enter into the contract by choice, but it doesn't mean that the contract doesn't exist. Whether or not ultimate human chioce (without consequence) should exist is a debate of a different merit.

Oh it's been done, and is arguably still going on in some countries. Theocracies are not a new development at all.

 

And even if the founding fathers did sign and were alive it still wouldn't be valid - contracts aren't unilateral.

It certainly means the contract is not valid, no? My great great great great grandparents can sign a contract that is legally binding on me?

 

You could be a comedian, thats how funny that statement was. Made me laugh so hard in real life, because its true. Im glad I said "I guess they figure".

 

The constitution is completely plagarized from Locke's ideals lol. Jefferson would have been sued if it was written today.

 

I never understood why people divide themselves into countries and view war as a me vs you thing, we are all on the same side. We were all born into this world and we don't even know why we are here or what the purpose of our lives are, and yet we are willing to destroy each other at command from our governments. When a war happens, it is the regular people who are just trying to live their lives that die and suffer, while the people who started it are sitting in their command centers having a nice cup of coffee while ordering people to slaughter. Why can't we realize that our governments simply view us as pawns and sheep? Why do people let TV and other people shape reality for them? Why are people so scared to break the rules? Why are they ok with other people telling them what's right and what's wrong? Shouldn't you have the responsibility to determine what's right and what's wrong by analyzing the situation and weighing out the good and the bad? Isn't handing over that responsibility to authority basically allowing them to control almost every aspect of your life?

 

You misunderstand me. I'm just using an example of empirical reality to demonstrate that similar compositions can have different results. I believe your simplification of these so-called "artificial concepts" is a fallacious equation.

Ok, let's just cut the point and semantics. The part that bothers you, isn't the poor contract, it's the fact that there's anying "legally" binding at all in the first place.

Alright I suppose. If contracts by semantical definition imply mutual agreement, then the law is not in itself a contract.

So, I suppose that you believe yourself as being oppressed. And because the oppressors have more power than you do, you will more likely than not, continue to be oppressed.

Theocracy is a form of statism. This rectange-square mixup is dangerous.

 

Sure. I was just pointing out it wasn't a contract as there wasn't the element of consent from all parties involved - something all contracts must have to be valid.

 

Yes.

I'd replace reason, with reasoning, as there is rarely such a thing as universal reason.

A rational concept, one grounded empirical reality, should be applied when the rationality of a another concept is in question. Additionally governments, states (which according to you are just misplaced philosophies) do have their grounds in the physical world in what you have simplified as "papers, buildings, and people."

What you are doing here is defining these philosphies as inherently irrational, and then telling me that any sort of rational reasoning cannot apply to them.

I was agreeing with you.

So you believe yourself as a tax-cattle...

Isn't that the world you want to live in?

The chronological existence has little to do with it's categorization.

Statism: A political viewpoint that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state.

Theocracy: Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler

The distinction is clear. Theocracy is a form of statism, not neccesarily the other way around.

It doesn't really matter. You believe any sort of ruling to be irrational - regardless of who sits at the top.

 

I think what Sythe is trying to say is that statism is a form of theocracy because of the worship of the state like a god.

I think that theocracy is always a form of statism, while statism can sometimes be a form of theocracy.

 

"Reason is the mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises"

This "mental faculty" cannot always be the same.

I said there was a distinction, not that the two were holistically distinct.

Worship and rule are two different things. As you have mentioned yourself, the state establishes itself in very tangible/physical ways.

Agreed

You made this too easy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one."
—Alexandre Dumas, fils

Though I suppose the next step, in the rather elementary and predictable argument, is to presume that if "1" wasn't true, then all people are good, and therefore we don't need a government.

 

I watched all 7 videos a few days ago, and I decided to wait till I cooled off from my passionate human rage.

He is very good, let me just say that. I mean, he could have covered more, and I think a better speech was in order, but despite that fact, he was right on the money, and has given me quite a few things to think about.

Before watching this, I was actually very passionate about our Constitution. Still, I love the idea behind it. In our history, you have a group of people who decided to break the law, and say 'Fuck off our shit' and fled to a new land. They were passionate, fearless, and ready to go.

But, we do indeed live in a place where we're lied to 24/7. It's just one big fuckin lie, but because the government still has the police and military, we can't do shit about it.

Fantastic find, I loved it.