>Bring girl to my place >Watch movie, then go to my bedroom,

File: [kills you in spanish].jpg (41KB, 540x361px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 540x361px

>>18334780
Your picture is retarded

>>18334876
Taxation is theft.

>>18334876
Not OP, but I think there is a point to be made in that you're never actually given a choice if you want to live in society, and that's not really fair. You can't just go and live in the woods because all land is owned, so that makes you a squatter which is a crime. And you can't just buy land and live primitively on it because you still need to pay property tax on it.

But really this issue pales in comparison to the fact that creating life is inherently unethical because people cannot consent to be born. All the people who were born with extreme birth defects that give them terrible quality of life, all the people who have mental illness and want to die, all the people who grew up in extreme poverty or died as children from war or terrorism, the list goes on. Was it fair to those people to have created them without their consent just to have them suffer and die in a cruel world? And the real kicker is that once you're here you can't even kill yourself, because that act would be unfair to your family and friends who will suffer emotionally from it.

>>18334945
Did you use roads, sidewalks, or sewers today?

>>18334946

Your offspring is meant to continue your legacy. Nothing more. If you have learned and done all that you want, and have made the world a better place, there is no reason to reproduce. If you can't finish your work before you die, it is your duty to replace yourself with another similar model which may have more success. Otherwise the life you live will have been devoid of purpose.

Your grandfather did something, and his son did what he could to achieve what his father did and more. Now it is your turn. A shame that your father did not offer you the necessary wisdom to finish his work; his contributions will be forgotten.

>>18334976
The argument that the ends justify the means can be used to excuse any atrocity. I would gladly pay the equivalent of my taxes towards those things directly if given the choice. But I am not given that choice. Instead I am forced to fund things which I don't support against my will under the threat of imprisonment.

A just governing body cannot be produced through unjust means.

File: ????????????.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

>>18334976
Roads aren't even real.

>>18334780
Now OP learnt never to post a picture more interesting than his post.

>>18334991
You know, the bitch of it is, philosophically, you're right - you never did consent to taxation. You never signed the social contract, you never agreed to shit. You just kinda got roped into it when you were born, which obviously wasn't something you chose to do. That's not fair.

But in practice, there's simply no way to run a functional society without taxation, and it can't have an opt-out button, too many people would abuse it. If you disagree and think you've worked out a cute little AnCap solution that'd be as good as what we've got, well, you're wrong. And even though you never consented ... you benefit from the system. You derive more value from it than you pay in. It may be 'wrong', but it's still a net gain for you.

So suck it the fuck up.

File: 1494319543389.png (600KB, 640x662px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 640x662px

Pay up wagies.

>>18335005
Sorry but I think the practical argument is mostly BS. Human beings survived for centuries without massive governing bodies. In the West they called it the state of nature, where man was "free and happy" (I think Rousseau said that). In the East, this was called "the age of perfect virtue" (Zhuangzi).
Military, insurance, electricity, etc. are modern inventions in comparison. They are artificial needs. The redistribution of wealth (socialism and welfare in general) only serves to further create more artificial needs. The government, now almost solely responsible for these artificial needs, becomes artificially necessary itself -- and acceptance of this artificial needs hierarchy does nothing but harm the species by forcing it further from the state of nature and deeper into a state of authoritarian control.
Modern science will confirm this. It is well known that human beings individually are happiest and most productive in smaller communities akin to early tribalism.
I don't support ancap stuff in particular, I support a return to the full state of nature. Which I guess is called anarcho-primitivism.

>>18334780

If you want an example of an anarcho-capitalist society you only need to look at Somalia or some other hell hole. Pure greed and selfishness destroy any society. Libertarian AnCap are even more deluded than hippie AnSoc.

>>18335027
I'm not particularly interested in the results. Justice lies in the means, not the ends. If a just society would cause the human species to destroy itself, then humanity and justice are incompatible, and justice/virtue frankly take priority as far as I'm concerned.

>>18334780
You really shouldn't have put that picture if you want to have a serious discussion about the text.

From what I can tell, she maybe was nervous or is just trying to tease you. Weird man.

File: visibleconfusion.gif (4MB, 280x302px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 280x302px

>>18335021
>military
>modern invention

>>18335036

Your limited perspective of history may not allow you to see it that way. If war was the first invention of man, we would have died off thousands of years ago.

>>18335021
I'm sorry, dude, but that's a stupid fucking argument.

To return to an ancestral state we'd have to let most of the 7 billion people who're alive right now just die off, because without modern infrastructure, farming techniques, and medical care, never in a million years could we support such a huge population. Unless you're willing to mass murder most of the world's population (statistically you'd almost certainly be part of the death toll), unfortunately it's true ... you just can't go home again.

Hell, even if you could somehow convince an entire country to throw away all their books and TVs and computers and swear off medical care and return to the land (and good luck to you), it'd never last - you'd be taken over pronto by some other group who shockingly enough DIDN'T see fit to do all that. Enjoy your tax-free primitivist utopia for the two and a half months you'll have it, though.

The practical argument is not BS. What you want will never happen. It never CAN happen. So pay your fucking taxes without whining about it.

>Human beings survived for centuries without massive governing bodies. In the West they called it the state of nature, where man was "free and happy" (I think Rousseau said that). In the East, this was called "the age of perfect virtue" (Zhuangzi).
Hundreds of thousands of years, not centuries, but you're out of your mind if you think Paleolithic society was free from social compulsion. Today most tribal societies even have something recognizable as governance, and that's not new; they've had it for many thousands of years. And they aren't paradises. If you'd been born in a tribal society you'd be overwhelmingly more likely to be murdered, for instance.

>>18335041
Ironically war was one of the 'first inventions of man,' in that it literally predates the emergence of Homo sapiens as a species. The overwhelming trend since the agricultural revolution has been a decline in the % of violent deaths from warfare. You are massively less likely (by a full order of magnitude) to be killed by another human being in a modern country (even a third world one) than in a tribal society.

>>18335029
If you don't want to pay taxes you can always try to live as a hermit somewhere in the wilderness.

>>18334780
Maybe she actually had to leave?

>>18335051
Partially right. War was an invention of the neolithicum, one of the side efects of settling down and claiming land in combination with the emergence of agriculture and rising populations.

Of course there's been violence before, but never large scale between two peoples.

>>18335047
Not so long ago, a US without slaves could "never happen", too. The only thing preventing "impossible" things from happening is people who think they're impossible. And yet today we are increasingly close to strong AI, which even 20th century philosophers considered impossible. We can print edible food now, just like in Star Trek. I have seen many impossible things come to pass just within my lifetime; I'm uninterested in what is "possible". I only care about truth, justice, liberty -- any one of those is worth countless (im)possibilities.

Three generations after implementing a superior educational system which teaches virtue, as opposed to wage labor, as the value of a human being. That is all that is necessary to begin the change. Of course it is grandiose. But if a cartoon frog that shitposters on /pol/ worship can become an international icon, so can any other idea or set of ideas. This one is not exempt.

>>18335060
You're wrong. Flat out wrong, and I have 20-30 years of evidence from several fields - archaeology, anthropology, and primatology to name the most obvious - on my side.

War is innate to the human species and not a consequence of agriculture or the consequent rise in population density.

>>18335071

War is only a tool used by governing bodies. It is as integral to humanity as any other tool. But I have a good enough imagination to think of this world without hammers and corkscrews. It works just fine.
More important: if war is so central to human beings, explain why every country isn't in a constant state of war.

>>18335069
>Not so long ago, a US without slaves could "never happen"
The abolition of slavery wasn't seen as an impossibility by people at the time at all. In fact, one of the main debates in the abolitionist camp, going back WELL before the Civil War, was whether they should force the issue or simply sit back and let economic pressures and the inherent inefficiency of the system kill it over the course of the next few generations.

>And yet today we are increasingly close to strong AI
It's a long way off, dude, and AlphaGo, although a milestone and an amazing accomplishment that the DeepMind team should be justly proud of, was not a game changer.

Not that either of those has anything to do with the feasibility of a back-to-the-land anarcho-primitivist utopia in the here and now, or in our lifetimes.

>>18334780
I do this to guys as long as I can in order to 'take it slow'

>>18335082
I'm certain that if I were to talk to, say, Alexander the Great during his time and explain modern America he would think it impossible and call me a liar.

Impossibilities are only artificial limitations. If everyone were to follow your reasoning, we never would have stepped on the moon; never would have invented long distance video chat; never would have made a nuclear bomb or even a submarine.

The impossible has a tendency to happen. If I support the primitivist ideal, perhaps in a dozen generations someone will find something that I wrote and make it happen. Who knows?

>>18335078
>More important: if war is so central to human beings, explain why every country isn't in a constant state of war.
Because civilization, for all its faults (and it has many) has above all been a mediating influence on the violent tendencies of the species. I'm not going full Hobbes on you, life in the Paleolithic wasn't hellish by any means - in a lot of ways it WAS better than life after the agriculture revolution, at least until very recently (the last 2 centuries) - but not as far as warfare was concerned. One of the marks of the kind of tribal society that you apparently want us to return to is that they generally ARE at war on a near-constant basis - and contrary to what was believed in the mid-20th century, their warfare is NOT simply a "ritual" or any less lethal than 'modern' warfare. In fact, it's vastly more lethal, for a variety of reasons. And this is corroborated by archaeological evidence showing that certain tribal societies prev. believed to be peaceful were anything but, and from primatology showing similar trends in our close relatives - and that is truly just scratching the surface.

tl;dr the fact that we are not constantly at war is one of the things that distinguishes us from the kind of society that you idolize.

>>18335095
Look, dude, if you want to scribble about the virtues of the land and the evils of modern society, be my guest. I truly have no issue with it. Who fucking knows where we'll be in a dozen generations. Maybe we'll have cold fusion and we'll be a totally post-scarcity society and there really will be no need for taxation and we'll have stabilized our population at a sensible level and we'll all be able to live much closer to nature, without giving up e.g. modern medical care. If that's your dream, chase it, broski, I've got no issues.

What I'm talking about is the here and now, and HERE AND NOW the kind of society you want simply is not going to come about. Because it can't.

So by all means try to nudge things in the direction you want, but in the HERE AND NOW, pay your fucking taxes without whining about it.

>>18334780
Nah for real, I'd punch the bitch if she pulled that shit on me.

>>18335071
May I have your sources? I've only just began to study and my prof told us that wars were part of the neolithic package.

>>18335119

It is well known and understood that taxation is theft. What kind of a hypocrite would I be if I were to pay the slave owners while also disapproving of the chains around my wrists and ankles?

If I could go out and live in a house I built from trees I cut down, free from modern society, I'd do it. Unfortunately our owners are so obsessed with their possessions that even that is illegal!

What you suggest is merely to bow and follow the law, whether it is just or not, because it is expected. But that isn't virtuous action; it's the opposite.

My grandmother used to say: evil is what happens when good men do nothing.

>>18335130
Sure thing. Give me a little bit to dig up some (it's been a long time since undergrad) and write a little about them for context, I'm browsing /adv/ and also doing other things, but if you check back in a little bit I'll dump some.

>>18335192
No problem, I'll check back in an hour or two.

>>18335202
First a summary, sources in the post below.

I'm not surprised your prof claimed that warfare was an artifact of the Neolithic. Most archaeologists used to think that - obviously it makes a certain intuitive sense, the idea that people just wouldn't have had a reason to kill each other en masse until they started farming and living in sedentary societies with much larger population densities. And for a long time anthropological evidence did seem to support that - individual battles in tribal warfare don't usually have very high casualty rates; they seem kind of ritualistic and nonlethal. Turns out that's misleading. The trouble is that the researchers were only looking at individual battles, and ignoring a couple facts:

1. Groups in tribal societies generally fight ALL THE FUCKING TIME - vastly more often than in 'civilized' societies. Casualty rates of one to two percent / battle don't look like much but they accumulate very fast when you're fighting every couple of weeks or months for years on end.
2. Many of the deaths in tribal warfare aren't immediate but come afterwards, from infection/poison/etc.
3. The actual 'battles' are only half of the picture - you also have to factor in nighttime raids etc, which can be extremely deadly.

There also used to be a seeming dearth of archaeological evidence for prehistoric warfare - that's also changing. New studies were done on sites that were thought to be peacetime graveyards revealing them to be massacre sites, and these days it seems like you can't move without tripping over a new prehistoric mass grave. And after more research was done it turned out the Gombe Chimp War wasn't, in fact, the result of human encroachment, it's just that chimps are violent little shits and they fight each other all the time.

>>18334780
What a retarded picture. The fourth picture on the right should be the same, consent. You consent to taxes by living in the country that taxes you. If you don't like it, you have the option to fuck off to elsewhere.

OK, sources. The big one to start with is Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization, which is the book that, in the '90s, kind of brought all this changing evidence together and codified it. It further references a bunch of other primary sources - ethnographies of tribal groups like the Mae Enga and Yanomami, as well the archaeology of North American tribes. For another excellent book on the opposing side check out Raymond Kelly's Warless Societies and the Origin of War, which was written as a direct rebuttal to Keeley (and you have no idea how many times I mixed those names up in papers ...) although in some ways they don't even disagree that heavily (Kelly thinks the Paleolithic was violent, with high homicide rates, just not 'warlike'). Whichever side you fall on it's well worth a read.

Honestly just reading those two books and maybe checking out the reception they got will give you more than enough direction if you want to keep looking into this, but if you read a third, check out Keith Otterbein's How War Began.

Well OP I can say this has happened to me before and wait a minute who's that on the r

As far as individual papers and studies go, there of course have been dozens published on this topic, too many to link here. If you read one ethnography, read Chagnon's ethnography of the Yanomami; full disclosure, it's one of the most controversial anthro texts of the past 50 years, but you can't get away from its influence.

Without digging up the actual papers (they're certainly available) on Paleolithic massacre sites, the Nataruk site was widely reported in the pop. sci press a few years ago, but there's also been much written about the Jebel Sahaba and Ofnet sites too. Information on all of those is easy to come by if you search. There are more pre-contact massacre sites in North America than you can shake a stick at although they aren't really Paleolithic (but plenty are hunter-gatherer sites). Crow Creek is possibly the most famous overall; Saunaktuk is probably the most famous hunter-gatherer massacre site.

And since I mentioned the Gombe Chimp War, Jane Goodall's work is the foundation for that whole debate but if you want to get a quick and clear picture of where the conversation rests now, you can google a paper that was published in Nature just a few years ago - search "lethal aggression in pan" and you'll find it.

Sorry for writing so much, but it's probably pretty obvious that I'm a geek for this stuff so digging for sources & summarizing them wasn't much of a sacrifice.

>>18334993
Well i mean, how can they be?...

.. if our eyes aren't real........

>>18335389
>>18335446
>>18335462
Alright. Seems like north america used to be pretty bloody. I study in europe, maybe it was different here. I'll look into it some more.

Thanks for the sources, I have some reading to do

>it's a "/adv/-thread turns into /pol/-thread after 10 postings or less"-episode

>>18334976
For the sake of your argument, no.

What now?

>>18334982
What if you come from a purpose-less life? As in your parents didn't have anything to pass on, even work to be completed. Are you, as a person, without purpose?

>>18335727
Shouldn't have made the classic mistake of posting an OP with a more exciting picture than text.

>>18334780
she wasn't as into it as you imagined and you got turned down

She had bigger dick in her phone and suddenly crossed her mind

>>18335036
the idea of a professional soldier is most certainly a modern invention

>>18335047
>just accept something that's morally wrong without complaint
no

File: 1351741263608.jpg (19KB, 465x330px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 465x330px

Okay hold on everyone

Yes, you did explicitly consent to paying taxes when you explicitly consented to working a job. Idiot.

And your employer explicitly consented to taxation by the government in order to operate as a business.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't enter into agreements where taxation is required and most definitely spelled out clearly.

>>18336336
>don't work a job
>unable to afford food
>die
not a real choice, I can't just go hunt and gather on someone else's land because that's trespassing and squatting which are crimes and I'll be put in jail. I can't buy my own land without capital, and even I could I'd still have to pay property tax on it.

That's like saying if you hold a gun to a person and say suck my dick or I'll shoot you it wasn't rape because they chose to suck your dick.

>>18336289
ever watch 300? the spartans had a professional army in 500 BC. Sumeria, one of the oldest civilizations on the planet, had a professional army in 2600 BC.

>>18335084
Yeah maybe she does it on purpose because she doesn't want to be a hoe or she finds it helps foster the relationship

>>18335084
ok I get wanting to 'take it slow' and I respect that but what OP described is basically blue balling the dude. If you want to take it slow be upfront and clear well before you start ripping each other's clothes off.

>>18335766
Blessed are those without purpose. They create their own, and hence all their descendants then continue their work, rather than the work of older ancestors.

>>18336353
I meant modern as in an invention that came with the founding of civilization, sorry that was poorly articulated

>>18335021
>Human beings survived for centuries without massive governing bodies.
Yeah but most of them died of disease or were murdered. The state of nature is barbarism, and if that's what you want there are places in the world you can go to for exactly that.

>>18335005
So, if it is not practical to live without, why not limit taxation to the absolute minimum?

>>18334780
Taxation is the fee for

-Police
-Roads
-Streetlights
-A personal army to defend ur cuntry
-A bunch of cunts paid to sit around and complain how the money is wasted

>>18336340
So you get more for paying taxes than you would if you didn't. Seems alright to me

>>18336293
>morally wrong

>Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

>But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

>Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

>And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

>They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 20:17-22)

Fuck anarcho-primitivism

Fully-Automated Post-Scarcity Luxury Anarchism NOW.

Who the fuck needs roads or sidewalks when you have solar charged electric planes? Fuck whatever structure the system has, I can live on self-dependency. We could all do that already with robots but people think a life without needing to work or be paid is communism. Anyway any anarchist that didn't already consider the consequences of a lawless world and accept them as worth the risk is a fucking retard and doesn't actually care for anarchy. I'd rather have an automated nuclear missile arsenal with which to defend myself from any and all attackers with ease than have to pay up to some bloated protection agency that still can't ensure I won't get robbed or shot before they can get there and help me.

File: scaled.jpg (15KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x480px

how to derail thread 101

>>18334991
Actually you are. When you get a job you consent to paying taxes. You literally sign a contract which requires you to pay taxes.

>>18337717
OP made a rookie mistake. I came here because of the picture, but since the picture isn't related, I didn't even read the OP, then I saw the first post which of course addressed the picture because the theme of it is motherfucking politics.
OP a dummy

She just got nervous. There is no mystery here.

>>18337211
>let's make life one long summer break where everyone is a bored trust fund kiddie

I know this is coming eventually, but will you guys please let us keep a little bit of land where you still have to fight to stay alive?

>>18337727
Except you're not allowed to opt out of taxation. The equivalent would be like saying you're only allowed to date if you have sex. If you try to date without fucking people will come and throw you in prison. But it's okay since you signed a piece of paper that has no alternative options.

>>18337785
The United States, which is not a signatory to the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons or the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, is one of a small number of countries that allow their citizens to renounce their citizenship even if they do not hold any other.
Renounce citizenship and swim to Cuba.

File: offtherail.png (48KB, 1344x174px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1344x174px

>>18337750
yup