'Purchase'? I think that is the characteristic way this argument has gotten flipped wherever it has played out. And that has been often. The person who doesn't want to be a bagman for something foreseeable gets accused of wanting to control those he refuses to help. No one can simply be tired of upside-down world and the endless parade of its victims. Whatever the cost to them personally in doing so, no one's attempt to seclude themselves from goings-on in which they will not even have a say is seriously respected by anyone. But everyone always wants to debate on this, and will even bait the person into it, despite the fact that this only burns the time to which the lover of argument has already decided the person has no right!

What use would I have for you, that I would want to purchase you? Your lockstep, rank-closing rationalizations of insanity are something from which I have demonstrably distanced myself...and this is counted as a sin. I did not invent the concepts of sin and redemption, mass surveillance and mind-reading technology, the threat of nuclear war, racism, compulsory service and sterilization. The mob's enemy is itself, no one else, especially not the person who does not want to join it.

Or is this an attempt to guilt? It will not work, because the grounds for the obligation simply aren't there: no affection, neighborliness, respect of boundaries, actions indicating the constant claim of common destiny, support, or any of the other innumerable marks of kinship. Only obligations backed by threats and fear.

So finally we arrive at the basic statement that one person pays and must pay for a ticket another gets for free, with the reason why being so obviously indicated by the lack of any sign of kinship, and the grounds for appeal must invariably hinge upon the soul. How convenient! How cheaply my service would be purchased by you, when you have the privilege to say that I cannot buy what others get for free! Monsters...I'm surrounded by monsters.