Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[Rob Roy]

Hey Rob. I worked on my Bike this weekend. Heavy job. Had to get the starter out to take the throttle bodies out to replace a throttle cable.

But, I could not have designed that bike. Not all jobs are equal. That is the red herring of the debate.

You want us to buy the idea that only the workers work, and the managers of marketing, finance, IT, etc are worthless. But, there would be nothing to work on but woven baskets without the entire interlocking infrastructure of RISK.

The bottom has low risk and a steady paycheck. It gets more risky and less steady as you move up.

In life we get paid to be assigned some risk, and to take responsibility for that risk.

That pays more. The more you risk, the more you have,

No. I want you to buy the idea that people should interact on a consensual basis, not on a coercive basis.

Whichever arrangements people make should be up to them, not me. If some people want leaders that's their business, not mine.

Been awhile on bikes for me...bad hips make them unsafe for me to ride now. Had some thoughts on grabbing an old Beemer. Used to have lots of bikes, even one of those fake Indians awhile back.

 

[Rob Roy]

No you aren't. Y


ou advocate for the capital class to own resources and infrastructure despite the fact that they create no wealth. Labor creates all wealth. By simply owning these things, laborers are coerced to rent themselves out and give up not only a portion but majority of the wealth that they create.

Not really. I appreciate the point made below. It's an exceprt from an article written by Davi Barker and published recently at the Daily Anarchist.


Two Equalities

There is an important distinction to be made between formal equality and material equality.

Formal equality means equal treatment, and concerns institutions within society, as in equality before the law. Formal equality is what was meant by “created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Material equality means people being made equal with respect wealth or resources. Material equality is the goal of Marxists and Communists, and is factually impossible to achieve because people are individuated and objects are indivisible. The two equalities cannot coexist because in order to impose material equality, formal equality must be violated.



I also appreciate that land ownership that is held or gotten thru coercion is a slippery slope. We probably share some beliefs or concerns there, but you haven't answered what you believe can and cannot be owned.

 

[Doer]

You have leaders if you like it or not.

 

[Doer]

People should do this and should do that.

What are you, the Pope.

 

[abandonconflict]

Not really.

Yeah really.

I'm not going to read something written by an ancap, he's not an anarchist and "the daily anarchist" is not an anarchist publication.

 

[Rob Roy]

You have leaders if you like it or not.

Almost. Semantics.

I will never follow a person that leads by force. I can be made to obey and forcefully "lead" by a chain, literally or figuratively just like anyone, but I am not lead or easily mislead. I follow ideas not masters.

Peace and good luck with the bike.

 

[Rob Roy]

People should do this and should do that.

What are you, the Pope.

I don't have a funny hat and little boys aren't my thing. My Latin is a little rusty too.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yeah really.

I'm not going to read something written by an ancap, he's not an anarchist and "the daily anarchist" is not an anarchist publication.

Okay. Suit yourself. You do own yourself. By the way which things do you think other people can own ?

 

[Doer]

You cannot own love and you cannot coerce me.

I desire this system. At least it is real and not some book club banter.

 

[Doer]

I don't have a funny hat and little boys aren't my thing. My Latin is a little rusty too.

So, why do you think you are the expert on what people should do?

 

[NoDrama]

You have leaders if you like it or not.

Actually those "leaders" are supposed to be our SERVANTS, but I think we all forgot.

 

[abandonconflict]

Okay. Suit yourself. You do own yourself. By the way which things do you think other people can own ?

Nobody owns me.

People are not property.

 

[NoDrama]

So, why do you think you are the expert on what people should do?

He has never portrayed himself as someone who knows what OTHERS should do, only what he himself would do. I think its been pretty damn clear that Rob would never tell anyone else what to do.

 

[NoDrama]

Nobody owns me.

People are not property.

So, if you don't own yourself then who does? Can't be ownerless.

 

[Rob Roy]

So, why do you think you are the expert on what people should do?

I'm not. People should do what makes them happy, unless their actions harsh on another person or their justly acquired property.

So if you want to wear a Pope hat while cruising on your bike and throwing stones at squirrels, I'm cool with that. Just don't make me follow you if I don't want to or I'm home sending in a voluntary donation to the SPGA (Society for Protection of Gerbil Association).

 

[abandonconflict]

So, if you don't own yourself then who does? Can't be ownerless.

Ownerless.

 

[Rob Roy]

You cannot own love and you cannot coerce me.

I desire this system. At least it is real and not some book club banter.

I forgive you for the squirrels, I really do.

In a free society you would be able to have your system but not impose it on others that will leave you alone if you leave them alone.

Book clubs are for sissies. Real men steal books from the library.

 

[Rob Roy]

Nobody owns me.

People are not property.

What is property and who can own it?


I don't think people are property in the sense that person A can own or sell person B unless person B has assented to it.

I think of people as having a kind of "ownership" in themselves in the sense that people have a natural right to self determination.
In that regard, I would term you as the owner of you.

 

[abandonconflict]

What is property and who can own it?


I don't think people are property in the sense that person A can own or sell person B unless person B has assented to it.

I think of people as having a kind of "ownership" in themselves in the sense that people have a natural right to self determination.
In that regard, I would term you as the owner of you.

And therefore ownership of oneself can transfer to another person...

 

[NoDrama]

Ownerless.

So since you aren't owned by anyone, then you are free to be told what to do and you have no argument otherwise.