Some are more equal than others...

[Rob Roy]

You live in a society, with that comes rules you have to follow. Those rules are supposed to be dictated by all of us. While this is the case you still have the opportunity to oppose said rules and live wherever you want outside of US jurisdiction

The majority is supposed to dictate the rules, not Soros or the Koch's

Not really. When the "rules" are arbitrary and negate the right of a peaceful individual, then things like slavery can be legislatively approved. Or in more recent times you could not be allowed control of your own body (pot laws) or be forced to fund or purchase shit you have no intention of using. Public schools and forced purchases of insurance etc.



When a majority dictates to a peaceful individual or a sole dictator does...how is one any better or worse to the peaceful person that abhors being dictated to?

 

[Harrekin]

Not really. When the "rules" are arbitrary and negate the right of a peaceful individual, then things like slavery can be legislatively approved. Or in more recent times you could not be allowed control of your own body (pot laws) or be forced to fund or purchase shit you have no intention of using. Public schools and forced purchases of insurance etc.



When a majority dictates to a peaceful individual or a sole dictator does...how is one any better or worse to the peaceful person that abhors being dictated to?

The majority can suck my balls and do whatever they want AS LONG as once I close my front door at night I'm allowed do whatever I want.

Vote "Mead and Weed" 2016.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Not really. When the "rules" are arbitrary and negate the right of a peaceful individual, then things like slavery can be legislatively approved. Or in more recent times you could not be allowed control of your own body (pot laws) or be forced to fund or purchase shit you have no intention of using. Public schools and forced purchases of insurance etc.



When a majority dictates to a peaceful individual or a sole dictator does...how is one any better or worse to the peaceful person that abhors being dictated to?

Like I said, if you don't like the rules dictated by society, leave the society. Nobody is forcing you to follow rules you disagree with, you freely choose to live in a society that lives by these rules, that choice is an agreement to abide by the rules or face the consequences of breaking them. You may not like the rules but they're there for a reason, and without them (anarchy) society wouldn't work the way it does now.

 

[Rob Roy]

Like I said, if you don't like the rules dictated by society, leave the society. Nobody is forcing you to follow rules you disagree with, you freely choose to live in a society that lives by these rules, that choice is an agreement to abide by the rules or face the consequences of breaking them. You may not like the rules but they're there for a reason, and without them (anarchy) society wouldn't work the way it does now.

Almost. Certainly people should "leave" a society, by rejecting tyranny. To do that, though you needn't physically leave though.

In a sense, every time a person smokes weed in the USA, they are "leaving" the tyranny. Also, please don't confuse "society" with government edict, they are not the same thing.

I try hard to follow this rule...I leave people alone that leave me alone. If any of "societies" rules reject that rule, I suggest you leave "society" too.

 

[UncleBuck]

To do that, though you needn't physically leave though.

if you want to go around exposing yourself to 6 year olds and paying children for sex, then yes, you certainly do need to leave.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I try hard to follow this rule...I leave people alone that leave me alone. If any of "societies" rules reject that rule, I suggest you leave "society" too.

The rules set by government dictate society

What if smoking weed bothers your neighbor? Are you really "leaving people alone"?

This is hilarious, Krugman makes Paul look like someones old crazy uncle at the family reunion

After watching this again, I can guarantee Krugman walked away from this interview saying "that guy was a fucking IDIOT!". Paul doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. The looks on Krugmans face as Paul was responding were priceless!

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Like I said, if you don't like the rules dictated by society, leave the society. Nobody is forcing you to follow rules you disagree with, you freely choose to live in a society that lives by these rules, that choice is an agreement to abide by the rules or face the consequences of breaking them. You may not like the rules but they're there for a reason, and without them (anarchy) society wouldn't work the way it does now.

So then you'll be leaving due to citizens United?

It's a rule, dictated by society, that you abhor.....

If not, then maybe you shouldn't tell people to leave....

 

[Harrekin]

The rules set by government dictate society

What if smoking weed bothers your neighbor? Are you really "leaving people alone"?

After watching this again, I can guarantee Krugman walked away from this interview saying "that guy was a fucking IDIOT!". Paul doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. The looks on Krugmans face as Paul was responding were priceless!

Krugman is an idiot proposing perpetual boom and bust cycles, why do you like cyclical economic distress so much?

I personally don't care, I can earn on the ups and downs, but most normal people get shafted hard.

 

[Rob Roy]

The rules set by government dictate society

What if smoking weed bothers your neighbor? Are you really "leaving people alone"?

After watching this again, I can guarantee Krugman walked away from this interview saying "that guy was a fucking IDIOT!". Paul doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. The looks on Krugmans face as Paul was responding were priceless!

Thank you for admitting that arbitrary rules set by a coercive government are dictatorial. If people live in a dictatorial society, would it be safe to say they are not free to live peacefully?

If smoking weed bothers a neighbor, it must first be determined how, if at all, they were harmed. To do that a good understanding of what creates a harm and what doesn't is the place to start.

 

[Harrekin]

Thank you for admitting that arbitrary rules set by a coercive government are dictatorial. If people live in a dictatorial society, would it be safe to say they are not free to live peacefully?

If smoking weed bothers a neighbor, it must first be determined how, if at all, they were harmed. To do that a good understanding of what creates a harm and what doesn't is the place to start.

It's "offensive to them".

The PC crowd have everyone working off "feelings" rather than "liberty".

 

[Rob Roy]

It's "offensive to them".

The PC crowd have everyone working off "feelings" rather than "liberty".

Yes, good point.

The problem with "feelings" is it leaves things very subjective and arbitrary and essentially "unequal" because some people can usurp other peoples rights on a shifting basis. Applying property rights and observing the rights of self ownership cut through that and provide everyone the ability to exercise peaceful self determination.

Prohibiting people from associating that would like to and forcing them to associate when or both parties wish not to are two sides of the same coin.

 

[UncleBuck]

Krugman is an idiot proposing perpetual boom and bust cycles, why do you like cyclical economic distress so much?

krugman isn't a silver bug.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So then you'll be leaving due to citizens United?

It's a rule, dictated by society, that you abhor.....

If not, then maybe you shouldn't tell people to leave....

I didn't tell anyone to leave, I told RobRoy he had the option to leave if he so chose and that by choosing to stay he is agreeing to abide by the rules, just like I and everyone else has to. Complaining about a problem without actually working to fix or change it is something an ex-girlfriend used to do and I'll tell you and RR the same thing I told her, bitching about a problem isn't going to fix it. I'm not familiar with your views, but RR is idealistic to the point of naivety. He believes in a world that simply cannot exist in the reality we occupy. The solution to Citizens United is enacting a 28th amendment, thousands of people, including me, have been working for years to accomplish that. What have you or RR done to change anything about the problems that you discuss here?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Thank you for admitting that arbitrary rules set by a coercive government are dictatorial. If people live in a dictatorial society, would it be safe to say they are not free to live peacefully?

If smoking weed bothers a neighbor, it must first be determined how, if at all, they were harmed. To do that a good understanding of what creates a harm and what doesn't is the place to start.

You didn't say anyone "had to be harmed", you said "left alone". Are you saying your neighbor doesn't have the right to self determine when they would like to be "left alone" now?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I didn't tell anyone to leave, I told RobRoy he had the option to leave if he so chose and that by choosing to stay he is agreeing to abide by the rules, just like I and everyone else has to. Complaining about a problem without actually working to fix or change it is something an ex-girlfriend used to do and I'll tell you and RR the same thing I told her, bitching about a problem isn't going to fix it. I'm not familiar with your views, but RR is idealistic to the point of naivety. He believes in a world that simply cannot exist in the reality we occupy. The solution to Citizens United is enacting a 28th amendment, thousands of people, including me, have been working for years to accomplish that. What have you or RR done to change anything about the problems that you discuss here?

So this:

Like I said, if you don't like the rules dictated by society, leave the society.

Isn't telling anyone to leave?

Ok, that's enough for me. Have a great day.

 

[Rob Roy]

You didn't say anyone "had to be harmed", you said "left alone". Are you saying your neighbor doesn't have the right to self determine when they would like to be "left alone" now?

No. I'm saying that people should respect others.

Being left alone, can be subjective though can't it?

 

[Rob Roy]

I didn't tell anyone to leave, I told RobRoy he had the option to leave if he so chose and that by choosing to stay he is agreeing to abide by the rules, just like I and everyone else has to. Complaining about a problem without actually working to fix or change it is something an ex-girlfriend used to do and I'll tell you and RR the same thing I told her, bitching about a problem isn't going to fix it. I'm not familiar with your views, but RR is idealistic to the point of naivety. He believes in a world that simply cannot exist in the reality we occupy. The solution to Citizens United is enacting a 28th amendment, thousands of people, including me, have been working for years to accomplish that. What have you or RR done to change anything about the problems that you discuss here?

Not idealistic, principled and consistent. Thank you.

As far as doing something about it, I do all that I can, I'll not post my resume here though. Please don't make assumptions that I haven't "done anything" to advance freedom or peace. I appreciate that you are trying to do something you think will bring good into the world.

Also, you sort of allude to something called "tacit consent" which in this case is a conflation of "property rights" into something they are not. I argue for the freedom of self determination and peace, not the right of a collective to determine the fate of a peaceful individual. Tacit consent is based in fraud.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Not idealistic, principled and consistent. Thank you.

As far as doing something about it, I do all that I can, I'll not post my resume here though. Please don't make assumptions that I haven't "done anything" to advance freedom or peace. I appreciate that you are trying to do something you think will bring good into the world.

Also, you sort of allude to something called "tacit consent" which in this case is a conflation of "property rights" into something they are not. I argue for the freedom of self determination and peace, not the right of a collective to determine the fate of a peaceful individual. Tacit consent is based in fraud.

So your support for individual freedom stops at property rights? In your ideal world, do I have the right to smoke a joint in my backyard, even if my neighbor on the other side of the fence disagrees with it, or does my neighbor have the right "to be left alone" on their own property, and my smoke is impeding that right? And how do you determine who is right?

 

[Rob Roy]

So your support for individual freedom stops at property rights? In your ideal world, do I have the right to smoke a joint in my backyard, even if my neighbor on the other side of the fence disagrees with it, or does my neighbor have the right "to be left alone" on their own property, and my smoke is impeding that right? And how do you determine who is right?

You have a right to ingest whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. I don't determine who is right, circumstances of whether a victim was created or not determine that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You have a right to ingest whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. I don't determine who is right, circumstances of whether a victim was created or not determine that.

That's not the issue, do you have the right to do it in front of/next to someone who believes the opposite of you, that they have the right to sit in their back yard and enjoy themselves without dealing with the smoke that comes onto their property?

I'd really like to see how you actually answer this because this is an example of one of those situations I had in mind when I said what you believe simply can't exist in the real world. There is no such thing as "unlimited freedom" for everyone. Somewhere along the line, your freedom is going to conflict with my freedom, and without anyone/anything there to objectively say who is right, it's essentially you v. me, and throughout human history those situations tend to end favoring the bigger, stronger, more physically intimidating person. I'm sure you can foresee how that usually ends, which is why government exists in the first place.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -James Madison, Federalist 51