Quick "morality" question

[Cova]

Well..., with that novel a few posts up this thread takes yet another direction...  As it turns out the focus of the OP as it moved through the 5 scenario's was not on the fact that all 5 are stealing, but that the final ones are from organizations that some people feel hold authority.  I pluralize that because there are many people who allow the church to have more authority over them than the government.

As to the new direction this is headed in - there is one major flaw in your arguments Darren, which is best shown with these two quotes from your post:

And the only legitimate authority (i.e. power, rights, etc.) those men and women possess is that which was originally found in those who *delegated* power to them.

And these government men and women only acquire power from those that they claim to act on behalf of.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that elections have continued to occur between the time when authority was originally delegated to government and now.  Your argument seems to be that the current government has no (or deserves no) authority over us - I'm afraid thats only true in the most narrow possible definition, being that if you don't like it here you're free to leave.  The fact is that even if you didn't vote, the majority of the people who did have delegated that authority back to government.  Its not a perfect system, but its the one we're currently stuck with.  And if enough people all thought the same way about it, maybe things would change in a future election.  I think its just a matter of time until a new political party shows up pushing issues that the newer more technological generation is interested in and we'll finally see some changes - they didn't win, but the effect the pirate party had on the voter-turnout of the younger generation in Sweden is just the first example.  Getting the online community active over the potential Canadian DMCA is a Canadian example of how new communications technologies are letting more people get involved in politics.

[Thorin]

I apologize; I thought the link would allow for an unbiased exploration of the subject by any interested parties. Instead it appears that most RW'ers were interested in first hearing Dirtman's perspective, then responding to that with their own thoughts. My bad, I guess.

My problem with the original post was that it didn't define the subject, it left the subject of the post open to interpretation based on a set of letters linked to.  Even now, it's not clear whether you intended to discuss the validity of government and taxation or the definition of words used in those letters.  So now we have an unclear subject that you want an unbiased exploration of.  Well, unbiased isn't possible because everything you say is biased by your view of reality.  So all that's left, then, is a (hopefully friendly) exchange of opinions on an unclear subject.  Since you didn't provide an opinion, it seems to us that all you want is our opinion on an unclear subject.  And that feels like an ambush.  I'm not picking on you, I'm trying to explain why, from my point of view, it seemed like a troll.

I am suggesting that most people are "ignoring reality" by focusing on the memes and terminology without really thinking about the reality underlying the concepts. [..]
I'm not sure what you mean "how realistic", if you mean how realistic are those examples in the O.P. well those types of things happen every day. The result in the same (current owner losing property to new recipient) and the difference is in how that result takes place, again without euphemistic labels, instead using simple observational narrative verbiage.

This leads me to think that you want to use simple, common spoken English to converse, where we all know what the words we use mean based on their context.  But then...

You mention "belonging" to a Country. Well, I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but what factually is a "Country"? Most people are referring to a conceptual division when they say "country" or "nation", I presume you mean that and not the actual parcel of dirt (i.e. "territory") that you stand on/reside on, etc. If not, then consider how the government of a "nation" can be governing dirt. And how can those acting as representatives of a country be acting on behalf of dirt.

Here you pick apart the word "country", even though we can clearly see the meaning of it in Mr. A.'s post.

PS: if someone is claiming to have a cure for cancer that involves leeches, and I point out the irrationality of their claim (i.e. "it does not work"), I am not burdened with the responsibility of offering a replacement cure that "works".

No, but people typically respond better to constructive criticism than to simple criticism.  Suggesting an alternative shows that you are at the least not just whining, like so many others, about having to pay taxes.