[wanorris]

Sorry, I guess that was unduly harsh. Maybe I misread the tone of your prior post.

Referring to the social contract of a democracy as simply taking things by force sounded to me like deeply seated anger, and I guess I responded accordingly. And yes, advocating violence against Americans is pretty awful, but if you believe you live in a tyranny, violent overthrow is one of the traditional avenues for rectifying that situation.

[xlnt]

there is no "social contract". i didn't sign anything. they use force. end of story. you don't pay, people with guns do come. there is no denying it.

but they aren't a tyranny, that's very different.

[wanorris]

While a representative democracy cannot be considered a tyranny in the sense of being run by a single ruler with absolute power, a common, looser definition is that a tyranny is simply an oppressive and unjust government.

If you believe that the government is making you do things over which you have no control and which you have not consented to do through the use of force, how would you consider a tyranny different?

[xlnt]

we don't have an "oppressive, unjust" government. just cause it has a flaw doesn't make it bad. it's a good thing. it helps us. it's much, much better than nothing. it's also the best in the world. the best that ever existed. i just want it to be even better and don't agree that taxes are like dividends.