United States Empire

[abandonconflict]

The rest of us never volunteered to your exclusive deed over the land you call property, upon which you wish to practice racial discrimination. Just because gov't doesn't let you do something on the land gov't provided to you exclusively doesn't make you an anarchist, it makes you a racist hypocrite.

Inb4 pedophilia is described as a voluntary interaction.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The rest of us never volunteered to your exclusive deed over the land you call property

That's an excellent point I hadn't thought of before

Rob says all interactions should be voluntary and people need to give their consent in order to run the society and that the social contract is invalid because it doesn't meet that standard. So @Rob Roy how is your idea of society any more valid since nobody has given their expressed consent of it? It seems like people who support the idea of a central government tacitly oppose your idea of society, so what of their objections in your form of society?

I'm assuming you're saying people like you should be left alone and people like me should be free to elect representatives, so how would both our separate societies interact? What happens if you want to travel into or across a society that uses roads paid for by taxpayers since you don't pay taxes? What happens if you run out of clean drinking water when members of my society who pay taxes insist on providing the communities water for you and the rest of your society so you don't die because we're not monsters? Is that fair to the guy that says if you didn't pay for it, you shouldn't be able to use it? What happens if you commit a crime in a society that recognizes common law then run back to your society that doesn't to avoid consequences? Does your society offer any extradition options?

And dozens and dozens of other questions and problems that arise outside of the rights we've already organized throughout civil society... But start with those. I'd like to see how you answer any of those..

 

[Rob Roy]

The rest of us never volunteered to your exclusive deed over the land you call property, upon which you wish to practice racial discrimination. Just because gov't doesn't let you do something on the land gov't provided to you exclusively doesn't make you an anarchist, it makes you a racist hypocrite.

Inb4 pedophilia is described as a voluntary interaction.

I'm glad you brought that up. Here's what you might consider...grasshopper.

A person by virtue of being a physical being, MUST occupy some space. No TWO people can occupy the same space simultaneously. So if you are in a physical space FIRST, your claim to occupy that space is superior to any claim I can make to remove you.

If you improve a physical space and mix your labor with the present natural resources (there's your garden again), your claim to the fruit of that garden is superior to mine. If you build a home on that piece of land your claim to that home is superior to mine. If you want to exchange the fruit of your labor with another person who homesteaded another place, that should be your option.

So whether you recognize it or not, the person who first occupies and improves a physical space is the rightful owner, unless you think that their physical being can exist in a non physical realm or in the exact same place as another physical being at the same time.

 

[londonfog]

You really don't understand this quote:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I would suggest that you give Ms. Hall credit for the quote.
and if you defending something to the death, means you would fight for it. Not just walk away and ignore.

 

[Padawanbater2]

the person who first occupies and improves a physical space is the rightful owner

I wasn't aware of your native American ancestry

 

[londonfog]

But but I "self identify" as a Sasquatch now, can't I get my own bathroom at your laundromat? What kind of discriminator are you?

A citizen is a subject, a subject is a slave, slave. If you can't stop forging your own chains at least stop forging them to put on others.


No, I am NOT on the side of a person who wouldn't serve you or my son for your race and his sexual preference. I would take my business elsewhere.

If it pissed me off enough, I might even try to open a business across the street from the discriminator, and show the discriminator the error of their ways by putting them out of business, by giving excellent service to the people the discriminator turned away.

However I would not use force to make anybody serve me, you would. I don't own them or their property and neither do you or my son, nor does your government.

The only problem with my plan is YOUR government sets up so many obstacles to a person opening a business, it ends up creating costly barriers to entry in a given area of customer service.

No one is forcing anyone to open a public business. If you want to keep certain people out your place of business keep it private.
So I guess asking you to protest against the racist store owner is a no for you. You believe the racist store owner has a right to be racist in his business that is open to the public. In short, you enable segregation.

 

[Rob Roy]

That's an excellent point I hadn't thought of before

Rob says all interactions should be voluntary and people need to give their consent in order to run the society and that the social contract is invalid because it doesn't meet that standard. So @Rob Roy how is your idea of society any more valid since nobody has given their expressed consent of it? It seems like people who support the idea of a central government tacitly oppose your idea of society, so what of their objections in your form of society?

I'm assuming you're saying people like you should be left alone and people like me should be free to elect representatives, so how would both our separate societies interact? What happens if you want to travel into or across a society that uses roads paid for by taxpayers since you don't pay taxes? What happens if you run out of clean drinking water when members of my society who pay taxes insist on providing the communities water for you and the rest of your society so you don't die because we're not monsters? Is that fair to the guy that says if you didn't pay for it, you shouldn't be able to use it? What happens if you commit a crime in a society that recognizes common law then run back to your society that doesn't to avoid consequences? Does your society offer any extradition options?

And dozens and dozens of other questions and problems that arise outside of the rights we've already organized throughout civil society... But start with those. I'd like to see how you answer any of those..

First off, your society isn't "civil" if it arises from an assumption that some people can force others to interact with them.

Okay, some things for you to think about...

What happens "in my world" , the operating basis is, people work it out on a mutual basis, or they don't engage. Pretty simple. My society has that philosophy as a core tenet.



In your world, an imposed hierarchy imposes rules often to the dislike of one or both of the affected parties.

That's why I've continuously ask you who has the right to delegate a right they don't possess? The answer is obvious, NOBODY does. That kind of behavior is illegitimate if you or I do it. You agree with me on that.

It's also illegitimate if a collection of you and I's do it. You wish really hard that wasn't true, but it is, since it is consistent with what I said directly above, NOBODY, singular or plural has the right to delegate rights they do not possess. Your "society" rests on illegitimacy.

 

[Rob Roy]

I wasn't aware of your native American ancestry

Pacific Islander.

 

[Rob Roy]

No one is forcing anyone to open a public business. If you want to keep certain people out your place of business keep it private.
So I guess asking you to protest against the racist store owner is a no for you. You believe the racist store owner has a right to be racist in his business that is open to the public. In short, you enable segregation.

Channeling Uncle Buck won't help you.

I think taking my business to a person who isn't racist is the best way to let the racist know I don't approve of him.

I can, "not approve" of what some people do, while still respecting their right to control their property.

Where do you think the government gets the right to control your property from ? Do they own it or do you? Do you "own" your body? Should somebody force you to associate with them, if you prefer not to?

 

[londonfog]

Channeling Uncle Buck won't help you.

I think taking my business to a person who isn't racist is the best way to let the racist know I don't approve of him.

I can, "not approve" of what some people do, while still respecting their right to control their property.

Where do you think the government gets the right to control your property from ? Do they own it or do you? Do you "own" your body? Should somebody force you to associate with them, if you prefer not to?

again no one is being force to open a business to the public.
Next you will be telling us it is ok for a club/bar owner to allow underage kids to party, because it's his/her business.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What happens "in my world" , the operating basis is, people work it out on a mutual basis, or they don't engage. Pretty simple. My society has that philosophy as a core tenet.

In your world, an imposed hierarchy imposes rules often to the dislike of one or both of the affected parties.

That's why I've continuously ask you who has the right to delegate a right they don't possess? The answer is obvious, NOBODY does. That kind of behavior is illegitimate if you or I do it. You agree with me on that.

It's also illegitimate if a collection of you and I's do it. You wish really hard that wasn't true, but it is, since it is consistent with what I said directly above, NOBODY, singular or plural has the right to delegate rights they do not possess. Your "society" rests on illegitimacy.

If people elect representatives to govern, they give them that right. Elected representatives are granted the power to legislate by the people who elect them. The fact that there are people in society who choose not to vote is of no consequence to the rule. A much bigger problem is special interest groups who buy representation through legal bribes, effectively circumventing democracy to corporate interests.

"You wish really hard that wasn't true, but it is" - How is it true? We elect representatives, they write the law, if people think what they write is wrong, they elect somebody else to change it. If everyone were free to write and follow their own laws, society would devolve into chaos, exactly as it was before common law became widespread practice. We've had society be like you envision in the past, it didn't work out, that's why we live in the society we do today. If lawlessness worked, we'd be a lawless society.

Pacific Islander.

So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

 

[Rob Roy]

again no one is being force to open a business to the public.
Next you will be telling us it is ok for a club/bar owner to allow underage kids to party, because it's his/her business.

Your inversion of the circumstances doesn't mean threats of force aren't present. The very existence of an intervening party, (government) who tells you which hoops you must jump thru if you DO open a business reveals force.

Force also exists in this way, ostensibly private property has been deemed "not private" by your government by virtue of changing the meaning of what private property was intended to mean. The fact you MUST declare yourself or your property anything to the government or suffer consequences, reveals force.

Hang on a minute, I gotta go tell my grandson to finish his beer if he wants to watch Sesame Street. Be right back.

 

[Rob Roy]

If people elect representatives to govern, they give them that right. Elected representatives are granted the power to legislate by the people who elect them. The fact that there are people in society who choose not to vote is of no consequence to the rule. A much bigger problem is special interest groups who buy representation through legal bribes, effectively circumventing democracy to corporate interests.

"You wish really hard that wasn't true, but it is" - How is it true? We elect representatives, they write the law, if people think what they write is wrong, they elect somebody else to change it. If everyone were free to write and follow their own laws, society would devolve into chaos, exactly as it was before common law became widespread practice. We've had society be like you envision in the past, it didn't work out, that's why we live in the society we do today. If lawlessness worked, we'd be a lawless society.

So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

You could appoint somebody YOUR representative. You DO have that right. You go further though, you posit that a group can do a thing which if you or I did it, would be wrong. Then somehow you think the presence of the group magically changes the thing which is wrong, to being right.

Let's try your philosophy out. You have no right to force a person to interact with you, if they prefer not to. You probably agree whether the example is extreme or not, you and I should not engage a person in a nonconsenting relationship or we are in the wrong. The reason why we are wrong , is our actions would have violated AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS.

Whether a single person or a collective violates AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS, it will still be wrong to violate their rights.

Your argument seems to frown on single acts of forced interactions, but approve of gang acts of forced interactions. Gang rape doesn't make rape acceptable does it?


Laws ? Lawless ?
The first law should always be, do not initiate force either by yourself or with your gang. You routinely advocate violating THAT law, by insisting that it is okay for a gang to violate an INDIVIDUALS rights.

 

[Rob Roy]

If people elect representatives to govern, they give them that right. Elected representatives are granted the power to legislate by the people who elect them. The fact that there are people in society who choose not to vote is of no consequence to the rule. A much bigger problem is special interest groups who buy representation through legal bribes, effectively circumventing democracy to corporate interests.

"You wish really hard that wasn't true, but it is" - How is it true? We elect representatives, they write the law, if people think what they write is wrong, they elect somebody else to change it. If everyone were free to write and follow their own laws, society would devolve into chaos, exactly as it was before common law became widespread practice. We've had society be like you envision in the past, it didn't work out, that's why we live in the society we do today. If lawlessness worked, we'd be a lawless society.

So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

If everyone were free to own only themselves, a lot of problems would be avoided. What do you find disagreeable about that?

Your philosophy says the collective can own the individual, which is absurd. Since whether it's a collective depriving a person of self ownership or a single person, the ACT of depriving a person of self ownership itself is wrong.

If a person kills you using offensive force, it's murder, if two or twenty or a thousand people kill you using offensive force, it's still murder, even if you call it collateral damage.

A society (yours) based in the idea that a gang violating an individuals rights is acceptable, assumes a consensus on a thing wrong can magically make that thing right. It can't.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You could appoint somebody YOUR representative. You DO have that right. You go further though, you posit that a group can do a thing which if you or I did it, would be wrong. Then somehow you think the presence of the group magically changes the thing which is wrong, to being right.

If 500 people are stuck on an island deciding how to get off and take a vote that comes out 499-1, you being within the 499, would you honestly make the same argument for the 1 vote against? If you believed your survival depended on 500-0, and that 1 was holding it up, would you honestly, really be arguing the same thing?

Let's try your philosophy out. You have no right to force a person to interact with you, if they prefer not to. You probably agree whether the example is extreme or not, you and I should not engage a person in a nonconsenting relationship or we are in the wrong. The reason why we are wrong , is our actions would have violated AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS.

Whether a single person or a collective violates AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS, it will still be wrong to violate their rights.

No, I don't have the right to force a person to interact with me if they prefer not to. But when some person chooses to use my roads and all the other things I offer members of my society without paying for them, I consider that theft, as I'm sure you would too. So what are we to do, put a wall up like Donald Trump wants to between your society that want's to be 100% self sufficient and mine? Tell me how you can even realistically ensure people who do not contribute to the collective society don't benefit from it without some kind of physical barrier between us?

Your argument seems to frown on single acts of forced interactions, but approve of gang acts of forced interactions. Gang rape doesn't make rape acceptable does it?

No, I'd say my arguments stem more from pragmatism and reality. How do you plan on arranging a society in the US where those that recognize the rule of law and those that don't can possibly coexist peacefully?

Laws ? Lawless ?
The first law should always be, do not initiate force either by yourself or with your gang. You routinely advocate violating THAT law, by insisting that it is okay for a gang to violate an INDIVIDUALS rights.

Do you have the right to steal? Somebody owned that land before you did, right?

 

[abandonconflict]

A person by virtue of being a physical being, MUST occupy some space. No TWO people can occupy the same space simultaneously. So if you are in a physical space FIRST, your claim to occupy that space is superior to any claim I can make to remove you.

This does not address gov't granted exclusive deed. Furthermore, you seem to be stuck in a utopian bubble of your own false reality. We are discussing the real world I am referring to property rights apropos of actual history. You occupy a space that was made as a result of the greatest genocide in history.

 

[Rob Roy]

If people elect representatives to govern, they give them that right. Elected representatives are granted the power to legislate by the people who elect them. The fact that there are people in society who choose not to vote is of no consequence to the rule. A much bigger problem is special interest groups who buy representation through legal bribes, effectively circumventing democracy to corporate interests.

"You wish really hard that wasn't true, but it is" - How is it true? We elect representatives, they write the law, if people think what they write is wrong, they elect somebody else to change it. If everyone were free to write and follow their own laws, society would devolve into chaos, exactly as it was before common law became widespread practice. We've had society be like you envision in the past, it didn't work out, that's why we live in the society we do today. If lawlessness worked, we'd be a lawless society.

So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

People have the right to trade value for value on a consensual basis of their mutual choosing...free market exchange.

 

[abandonconflict]

If everyone were free to own only themselves, a lot of problems would be avoided. What do you find disagreeable about that?

People are not property, human rights come from being human. The right to own land is not a natural right, but a gov't granted right. This directly contradicts capitalism by definition, which is why you so vigorously defend it. It is no wonder you so often find yourself in the ideological company of racists, pedophiles, segregationists and white separatists, the diametrical opposite of anarchists.

 

[abandonconflict]

So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

Only the gov't.

AKA

The United States Empire.

 

[Rob Roy]

If 500 people are stuck on an island deciding how to get off and take a vote that comes out 499-1, you being within the 499, would you honestly make the same argument for the 1 vote against? If you believed your survival depended on 500-0, and that 1 was holding it up, would you honestly, really be arguing the same thing?

No, I don't have the right to force a person to interact with me if they prefer not to. But when some person chooses to use my roads and all the other things I offer members of my society without paying for them, I consider that theft, as I'm sure you would too. So what are we to do, put a wall up like Donald Trump wants to between your society that want's to be 100% self sufficient and mine? Tell me how you can even realistically ensure people who do not contribute to the collective society don't benefit from it without some kind of physical barrier between us?

No, I'd say my arguments stem more from pragmatism and reality. How do you plan on arranging a society in the US where those that recognize the rule of law and those that don't can possibly coexist peacefully?

Do you have the right to steal? Somebody owned that land before you did, right?

The island ?

Your question is flawed as it defaults to the idea that the ONLY way to get off the island is by forming a consensus. It is also flawed in that it assumes some people couldn't implement their ideas and others could participate or not on a VOLUNTARY BASIS.


You have stopped arguing the morality of mob rule, that's good. Although now you seem to be arguing that the efficacy of a thing can make it morally sound.

How do I plan to organize society? I don't.
I certainly don't plan on "organizing an involuntary society" . Apparently you think that's a job which is needed, it isn't.

I plan on running my life and leaving you alone. Horrible huh?