is this the middle ages?

[abandonconflict]

 

[Fogdog]

Was it a pickup truck with a "No Step on Snek" sticker? Did she end up paying her fine with Bitcoin?

She denies the court is valid because she "stands over the court as the public". This was an arraignment hearing and I'm pretty sure she's going to win. She will defend herself on the principle of Rob Roy's anarchocapitalist ideals. This is going to be big. Probably wipe away the constitution.

I heard from an anonymous source that there was a "No Step on Snek" tattoo where the taser needle hit.

 

[Budley Doright]

Sure, then all you'd need to do is point out WHO has the right to force another person to serve them?

It's not "my side" . I don't think it's very nice to racially discriminate.

Nor do I think the solution to forcing people to serve others against their will, can be cured by forcing others to serve people against their will. It's impossible. Nobody here has refuted that.
Can you?

Oh look it’s the weekend. Miss me?
First off you should really start to discuss this whole serve/slave thing in the context of a place of business versus a personal relationship. Please define who is being forced to serve others and by whom. In personal relationships you can interact with, or not with, who you choose. If forced to interact then yes that would slavery (your words).....I guess. Opening a business on mainstreet USA (or here) and that means you have agreed to serve the public, ya I guess if you only wanted to serve those who you wanted, then in your mind, forced to serve all is slavery, that sucks for you lol. Let us slip back to the shit piling up, you still have shit running into your house because you have no enforceable way to stop it, correct? You could build a shit dam but then you are a slave to the shit, again too bad for you, if only there was a way to stop that shit. Please explain your plan to stop the shit. Now let’s get to the math of all this. Everyone is telling you there is no way this will even remotely work, it should be upon you to prove that a consent without enforcement based world will work. Please include all of the variables that come with human interaction.
As for your age of consent argument well yes a 12 year old could consent to you raping them but is it consent or manipulation? To stop even one child from being manipulated and harmed, we as a society, and most of the world now for that matter, have enacted force based laws to try and prevent this. Do you agree children should be protected from manipulation?

 

[londonfog]

Oh look it’s the weekend. Miss me?
First off you should really start to discuss this whole serve/slave thing in the context of a place of business versus a personal relationship. Please define who is being forced to serve others and by whom. In personal relationships you can interact with, or not with, who you choose. If forced to interact then yes that would slavery (your words).....I guess. Opening a business on mainstreet USA (or here) and that means you have agreed to serve the public, ya I guess if you only wanted to serve those who you wanted, then in your mind, forced to serve all is slavery, that sucks for you lol. Let us slip back to the shit piling up, you still have shit running into your house because you have no enforceable way to stop it, correct? You could build a shit dam but then you are a slave to the shit, again too bad for you, if only there was a way to stop that shit. Please explain your plan to stop the shit. Now let’s get to the math of all this. Everyone is telling you there is no way this will even remotely work, it should be upon you to prove that a consent without enforcement based world will work. Please include all of the variables that come with human interaction.
As for your age of consent argument well yes a 12 year old could consent to you raping them but is it consent or manipulation? To stop even one child from being manipulated and harmed, we as a society, and most of the world now for that matter, have enacted force based laws to try and prevent this. Do you agree children should be protected from manipulation?

Good luck with him answering any of your well thought out questions.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes, a mutual agreement. Quid pro quo. If you do not have the wherewithal to make such an agreement you will not be able to obtain the license. I see that you are antisocial and have no job, so you clearly don't understand how commerce is conducted in society, but there are such things as mutual agreements where both parties MUST CONSENT, otherwise the transaction is nonconsensual.

Business owners are only licensed to conduct business with the public if they have consented to the agreements applicable to their business license. They are not forced to serve and racial discrimination is a violation of such agreements.

Please learn about commerce, and mutual transactions.

So, you're saying two consenting people will be left alone if they transact business between themselves, if neither one of them has COMPLIED with a forcible edict from a third party to extract the payment for a license / permission and the third party will leave them alone?

Then in the same breath you rail on that when the element of forcible licensure is present that consent and equality are the things being protected by an unwelcomed third party (government) ?

You do realize that's absurd right?

You seem to fall into the trap of considering any kind of government edict / intervention as being exempt from the set of events when considering if force, consent and equality are being discussed. Fail.

 

[Budley Doright]

Good luck with him answering any of your well thought out questions.

I know lol. I just keep asking though, it’s called insanity on my part I believe. I only do this on weekends now, it’s entertaining lol. I like watching him deflect the hard ones.

 

[londonfog]

I don't think mom thinks forcing people to serve others against their will is a cool thing. Does your mom think it is ?

Why are you ashamed to simple answer my question ? Here allow me to put it another way. My mother believes in the Civil Rights Act of 64. She feel that this was a start to make this nation a better nation for all. Does your mother SUPPORT the Civil Rights Act of 64

 

[abandonconflict]

So, you're saying...

I stopped reading here. Thank you for being straightforward about your intention to distort my argument. Saves me the time of having to read another whiny ass ancap letter.

 

[abandonconflict]

Oh look it’s the weekend. Miss me?
First off you should really start to discuss this whole serve/slave thing in the context of a place of business versus a personal relationship. Please define who is being forced to serve others and by whom. In personal relationships you can interact with, or not with, who you choose. If forced to interact then yes that would slavery (your words).....I guess. Opening a business on mainstreet USA (or here) and that means you have agreed to serve the public, ya I guess if you only wanted to serve those who you wanted, then in your mind, forced to serve all is slavery, that sucks for you lol. Let us slip back to the shit piling up, you still have shit running into your house because you have no enforceable way to stop it, correct? You could build a shit dam but then you are a slave to the shit, again too bad for you, if only there was a way to stop that shit. Please explain your plan to stop the shit. Now let’s get to the math of all this. Everyone is telling you there is no way this will even remotely work, it should be upon you to prove that a consent without enforcement based world will work. Please include all of the variables that come with human interaction.
As for your age of consent argument well yes a 12 year old could consent to you raping them but is it consent or manipulation? To stop even one child from being manipulated and harmed, we as a society, and most of the world now for that matter, have enacted force based laws to try and prevent this. Do you agree children should be protected from manipulation?

I mean, he doesn't even have a job.

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh look it’s the weekend. Miss me?
First off you should really start to discuss this whole serve/slave thing in the context of a place of business versus a personal relationship. Please define who is being forced to serve others and by whom. In personal relationships you can interact with, or not with, who you choose. If forced to interact then yes that would slavery (your words).....I guess. Opening a business on mainstreet USA (or here) and that means you have agreed to serve the public, ya I guess if you only wanted to serve those who you wanted, then in your mind, forced to serve all is slavery, that sucks for you lol. Let us slip back to the shit piling up, you still have shit running into your house because you have no enforceable way to stop it, correct? You could build a shit dam but then you are a slave to the shit, again too bad for you, if only there was a way to stop that shit. Please explain your plan to stop the shit. Now let’s get to the math of all this. Everyone is telling you there is no way this will even remotely work, it should be upon you to prove that a consent without enforcement based world will work. Please include all of the variables that come with human interaction.
As for your age of consent argument well yes a 12 year old could consent to you raping them but is it consent or manipulation? To stop even one child from being manipulated and harmed, we as a society, and most of the world now for that matter, have enacted force based laws to try and prevent this. Do you agree children should be protected from manipulation?

C- . Needs, some paragraph breaks. Full of conjecture and strawman.

Okay, I'll dip into this mess, but man is it a ball of confusion.

If you "have to agree" to something in order to do business, wouldn't that be the eradication of consent and equality right there, simply by virtue of the "have to" edict from a third party?

If you're interested in protecting people from manipulation that's a good thing.
Except you can't do that with a force based law, against neutral people who are capable of consenting to something and aren't committing force themselves, since you are including the thing (initiatory force) you hope to eliminate.

 

[abandonconflict]

If you "have to agree" to something in order to do business, wouldn't that be the eradication of consent and equality right there, simply by virtue of the "have to" edict from a third party?

No.

 

[Budley Doright]

So, you're saying two consenting people will be left alone if they transact business between themselves, if neither one of them has COMPLIED with a forcible edict from a third party to extract the payment for a license / permission and the third party will leave them alone?

Then in the same breath you rail on that when the element of forcible licensure is present that consent and equality are the things being protected by an unwelcomed third party (government) ?

You do realize that's absurd right?

You seem to fall into the trap of considering any kind of government edict / intervention as being exempt from the set of events when considering if force, consent and equality are being discussed. Fail.

No he’s not saying that, you would be wise to stop trying to imply what people are saying. There is a big difference between a private transaction between two people and a business that is open to the public correct? A business that is open to the public has to abide by certain rules. In my business, one aspect of licensing is to ensure safe and code compliant work is performed. If there were no licensing in place there would be no way to enforce compliance and safe work, people would die. Do you agree?

 

[Rob Roy]

I stopped reading here. Thank you for being straightforward about your intention to distort my argument. Saves me the time of having to read another whiny ass ancap letter.

Your argument includes a forcible licensure edict from the single biggest obstacle to equality and consensual human interactions.

Using "government says you must" as a basis for an argument about consent and equality of self determination is like hiring Harry Anslinger to defend you in a pot trial.

Double fail. Now stop whining and bring me a real argument that doesn't rely on a central authority dictating policy. Do I REALLY have to dissect the absurdity of that line of thought ? Really?

 

[abandonconflict]

forcible licensure

Were you forced to obtain a business license? I have never been forced to obtain one? Plenty of people who don't want business licenses don't have them.

I guess you're not familiar with commerce, since you are a shiftless and lazy pedo who argues in favor of racial discrimination. Is that the reason why you are antisocial? Afraid you might have a black customer?

 

[Rob Roy]

No he’s not saying that, you would be wise to stop trying to imply what people are saying. There is a big difference between a private transaction between two people and a business that is open to the public correct? A business that is open to the public has to abide by certain rules. In my business, one aspect of licensing is to ensure safe and code compliant work is performed. If there were no licensing in place there would be no way to enforce compliance and safe work, people would die. Do you agree?

If a business "has to abide by certain rules" are they rules that are demanded of the owner by a nonowner? Yes

If a business "has to abide by certain rules" , are those rules a forcible edict from other people ? Yes

Is a forcible edict from a third party a method of demonstrating inequality and removing consent ? Yes


If you disagree, please detail where my error is.

 

[abandonconflict]

If a business "has to abide by certain rules" are they rules that are demanded of the owner by a nonowner?

No. Property rights originate from the very same authority.

 

[Rob Roy]

Were you forced to obtain a business license? I have never been forced to obtain one? Plenty of people who don't want business licenses don't have them.

I guess you're not familiar with commerce, since you are a shiftless and lazy pedo who argues in favor of racial discrimination. Is that the reason why you are antisocial? Afraid you might have a black customer?

Force? Yes, if a person begins to conduct commerce, without seeking or gaining licensure permission, force will enter the equation.

Black people should not be forced to ask permission to control their own property and their own body should they ?

Look, I know you're all proud, that you moved out of your mom's basement and finally got some kind of a job, but that's no reason to question my work ethic or make false claims that I'm a racist etc.

 

[Rob Roy]

No. Property rights originate from the very same authority.

A man lives alone on an island and plants a garden.

Is the fruit of the garden his property ? Is his hut his property?

Is his handmade straw woman that he bangs whistfully on dark and stormy nights while wasted on coconut wine his ?

 

[Budley Doright]

C- . Needs, some paragraph breaks. Full of conjecture and strawman.

Okay, I'll dip into this mess, but man is it a ball of confusion.

If you "have to agree" to something in order to do business, wouldn't that be the eradication of consent and equality right there, simply by virtue of the "have to" edict from a third party?

If you're interested in protecting people from manipulation that's a good thing.
Except you can't do that with a forced based law, against neutral people who are capable of consenting to something and aren't committing force themselves, since you are including the thing (initiatory force) you hope to eliminate.

Sorry if I confused you, seemed pretty clear to me but I did just smoke my Saturday morning fatty. Yes you right I do have to agree if I want to serve the public or I could decide not to agree and forgo the business. You must keep in mind I made that choice knowing I had to comply, correct? And there you go again, I don’t wish to eliminate forced compliance at all and have not said I do, you have, on the other hand stated you would eliminate all forced compliance. How do you force people not to manipulate if there is no forced compliance to not manipulate? Hope for the best? I for one feel forced compliance is a good thing in certain situations and can show you why and how it works but you on the other hand have not shown how a non forced compliant world would. Again please answer the questions I put forth. Hurry I don’t have all day, I have things I’m forced to do today, like get more pellets for the stove, I’m a slave to my stove .

 

[Rob Roy]

No. Property rights originate from the very same authority.

Sometimes, government laws align with something that already exists. That is not the same thing as saying that a central coercion based government is the origin of those things.

For instance, murder, assault and theft would all be wrong, whether government said they were or not. Funny thing is, government exempts itself from guilt when THEY commit those acts.