Health Policy of the American Energy Party (AEP)

[The Voice of Time]

I stand by my statement that stealing is stealing, taking another person's property without his permission.

But people are part of the social contract, which is the foundation of states. People don't really "own" their property, they are not their own property's sovereign. They are merely borrowing it from the corporation called "the state", you might say, which is the true owner and sovereign.

You are born penniless, and all your life you are borrowing from society under the leadership of a governing state, taxes and labour is what you pay in return for the allowance to borrow within the confines of the rules of the state which participate in.

If you don't like your state, then, like a company you don't like, you can change. But like a company, there's a limited amount of terrestrial states, so if you want to be your own sovereign you better hope space exploration speeds up and that you are young enough to experience any independent expeditions to outer space.

[bobevenson]

I stand by my statement that stealing is stealing, taking another person's property without his permission.

But people are part of the social contract, which is the foundation of states. People don't really "own" their property, they are not their own property's sovereign. They are merely borrowing it from the corporation called "the state", you might say, which is the true owner and sovereign.

You are born penniless, and all your life you are borrowing from society under the leadership of a governing state, taxes and labour is what you pay in return for the allowance to borrow within the confines of the rules of the state which participate in.

If you don't like your state, then, like a company you don't like, you can change. But like a company, there's a limited amount of terrestrial states, so if you want to be your own sovereign you better hope space exploration speeds up and that you are young enough to experience any independent expeditions to outer space.

In your opinion, the government is king, which is understandable since Norway does have its royalty, doesn't it?

[The Voice of Time]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

In my opinion, that is what a government is. Not a king, which is hereditary rule of single persons (and the Norwegian monarch doesn't participate in politics, his de facto role is only symbolic).

[bobevenson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

In my opinion, that is what a government is. Not a king, which is hereditary rule of single persons (and the Norwegian monarch doesn't participate in politics, his de facto role is only symbolic).

No need to be defensive about your fairytale royalty. Under the AEP, the only proper function of government is social integration. The government does not own anything; everything is privately owned, including the government's supply of paperclips.

[The Voice of Time]

But how can a government exercise power without property? Where is it going to get value from?

[bobevenson]

But how can a government exercise power without property? Where is it going to get value from?

No, you don't understand. The government has access to property, they just don't own any of it.

[The Voice of Time]

So how can the government be dependable if people can just pull the rug beneath its feet? You'd just end up with a banana republic.

[bobevenson]

So how can the government be dependable if people can just pull the rug beneath its feet? You'd just end up with a banana republic.

Well, let's see, you start with a Constitution like the U.S., and you have a division of powers like the U.S (Executive, Legislative and Judicial); nothing actually changes, it's just that the government is now paying rent. There is absolutely no reason for government ownership of anything (except, of course, in your case, where it's OK for the government to own your soul)!

[The Voice of Time]

I didn't know you were religious? Souls don't exist, hence they cannot be owned, souls are fictitious creations of mysticism.

You'd still have a banana republic because the government would be at the mercy of oligarchs who control it by controlling the properties the government depend on to function.

In other words, you are indirectly advocating oligarchy (specifically plutocracy), trying to set social progress back by hundreds of years and into the renaissance and medieval era.

[Ginkgo]

You cannot put a bureaucrat behind bars for implementing the taxation legislation.

You might want to review the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi defendants said, "I was just following orders,"

Bob, what has Nazism got to do with out conservation? Nothing. We were talking about the American Energy Party, law, bureaucracy and the US Constitution. Perhaps with a limited reference to similar democratic countries.

Please let's stick to what we were talking about without the "red herrings."

[bobevenson]

I didn't know you were religious? Souls don't exist, hence they cannot be owned, souls are fictitious creations of mysticism.

You'd still have a banana republic because the government would be at the mercy of oligarchs who control it by controlling the properties the government depend on to function.

In other words, you are indirectly advocating oligarchy (specifically plutocracy), trying to set social progress back by hundreds of years and into the renaissance and medieval era.

First of all, when you say souls don't exist, you are apparently setting yourself up as an authority on the subject in opposition to billions of other people who say they do. I don't think it can be confirmed either way, but if you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know. Secondly, as I explained, nothing would change except for the government not owning anything, which is the only proper state of affairs.

[The Voice of Time]

My proof for the lack of existence of the soul is that 1) it is defined on-demand by individuals and not by any proper objective criteria and therefore it must be assumed it is up to each's imagination to make it what it is, and 2) those who do not give it natural embodiment are in so doing saying it's not real (as only natural things are real, as only in nature can they be proven to exist), and for those who do give it natural embodiment they are merely putting together things that have already been explained by science but injecting meaning that is not necessary for it but appears artificial.

[bobevenson]

My proof for the lack of existence of the soul is that 1) it is defined on-demand by individuals and not by any proper objective criteria and therefore it must be assumed it is up to each's imagination to make it what it is, and 2) those who do not give it natural embodiment are in so doing saying it's not real (as only natural things are real, as only in nature can they be proven to exist), and for those who do give it natural embodiment they are merely putting together things that have already been explained by science but injecting meaning that is not necessary for it but appears artificial.

Please refer to any authority besides yourself who subscribes to the above.

[The Voice of Time]

Secondly, as I explained, nothing would change except for the government not owning anything, which is the only proper state of affairs.

Yeah, but if other people own their own property, they can do it with it as they want, right? So those with lots of property can manipulate and cripple the state's autonomy and independence, right?

You know what that's called? Plutocracy.

[The Voice of Time]

Please refer to any authority besides yourself who subscribes to the above.

Do you let people speak for yourself?

Why should I?

It is not my intention to look for subscriptions, and it never has been.