Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You've turned your argument into an either / or and that is a false dichotomy. To really examine things, it is wise to consider all of the possibilities, perhaps you haven't. Political means are coercive, which means peaceful people reject them.

You've also confused imposed order for peace. Peace is not achieved when a central authority that holds that authority thru threats exists. If I'm wrong, without a lot of distraction, please point out how that is possible.

As far as banks go, they hold a coercive institutional monopoly of sorts. So the question to me isn't whether they should be forced to lend to this person or that. The question should be why do they exist in present mode in the first place? Strike the Root, don't flail in the branches.

You could be right about the other stuff, my intention was always not to get involved in the silly stuff. I arrived there as a defensive response to those that were unable to hold a debate without going to insults. I'm happy to stop, anytime the others want to. I'll consider doing it anyway. You've brought up a good point there.
Click to expand...
In your reply, as if you've stopped debating and are now repeating your philosophy. I'd like to live in a world where people just got along too.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Lysander Spooner is shaking his head in a grandfatherly, but slightly condescending know it all way now.
Click to expand...
Spooner? Now there was a character worth remembering. One of the great social gadflies of the latter part of the 1800's. Your bringing him up helps me understand better where you are coming from.

I knew that I was opening myself up to easy shots when I brought up the bit about consent of the people. Its a bit too sunshine and lollipops for this forum, I know.:hump:
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Ok, so I guess that you think the govmint causes more harm than good. If you don't like living in a society that rules by laws, try Somalia. No taxes, no govmint interfering with peoples affairs, no gun laws and you can do what you you want to on your property. Assuming you can defend it. Which is the problem. Without laws and law enforcement, society tends towards the lowest common denominator.

Can you provide an example of any nation of any size that doesn't need to enforce laws with some some form of coercion? People are people the world over.

War on Drugs is a major fail. I hate, hate, hate it. How to end it is the question. You might or might not know that the WOD began under the Reagan administration and its biggest, most vicious proponents today are in the GOP. Nobody in the GOP is going to win the nomination for president without declaring himself to be a warrior against drugs, including MJ. The Democrats are divided on this subject but there is at least a glimmer of hope that this country will move away from this failed action under leadership that is more left-leaning. And it's begun to move in the right direction under the Obama administration, not enough but some. He can't do much with congress dominated by the right. The Democratic Party is nothing to brag about but in this matter, there is no question that you'll find political allies in the DP against this pernicious policy and practically none in GOP. Oh sure, there are a few but pointing this out would only prove the point that there aren't nearly as free thinkers regarding drug policy in the GOP compared to the DP. For my part, I'll side with the blue party and use my piddly little vote to support the left. Other than tossing incendiary statements here and there on RUI, what do you think should be done to eliminate this abomination of a policy?

You aren't going to hear me defend banks but if you want to buy a house and don't happen to have a few hundred thou lying about, you have to deal them. Would you defend a bank's right to discriminate due to ethnicity or sexual orientation based upon your axiom that property rights trump all other rights?

Are you saying that this country has caused the greatest harm in the world? Umm it would be too easy to destroy this assertion. I'll just assume that you were high when you wrote this and let it slide. If you are saying government in general, I'd like to point out that religion has caused plenty of damage too, and that religion has used govmint as a tool to carry out these actions.

One last comment regarding your behavior. You seem to have some sort of fixation on poop. A few references I guess might be funny to some of the lower powered minds on this site but it wears thin. I think you are better than this. Could you clean up your act a little bit?
Click to expand...
You back Chesus?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
In your reply, as if you've stopped debating and are now repeating your philosophy. I'd like to live in a world where people just got along too.
Click to expand...
I agree. However let's first define what "getting along" means to us. I'll go first.

To me, it is a voluntary relationship where people that want to associate are able to or if that isn't possible, they at least agree to leave each other alone. An agreement to leave each other alone in that case is the best thing that can happen in that situation.

Getting along doesn't mean that a central authority or even one other person determines your relationships for you, THAT is imposed authority and can create imposed order, but it is not peace.

The heart of my philosophy is one of personal choice and personal responsibility.

My aversion to coercion plays a large part in why I espouse what I do.

I haven't stopped debating, I just think that attempts to correct a systemically flawed situation will never yield the result people hope for....because the presence of coercion insists it is systemically flawed.

Peace is often confused with imposed order, people are trained not to look outside the parameters they are given. I've stopped doing that.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Spooner? Now there was a character worth remembering. One of the great social gadflies of the latter part of the 1800's. Your bringing him up helps me understand better where you are coming from.

I knew that I was opening myself up to easy shots when I brought up the bit about consent of the people. Its a bit too sunshine and lollipops for this forum, I know.:hump:
Click to expand...
I don't think consent is collective, it's possible to be unanimous on a given thing, but most of the time it isn't. Real consent to be honest must be by the individual, otherwise it is an oxymoronic term.

I like sunshine, lollipops not so much.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yeah, I'm not very cynical about government. Not saying you are wrong, but when governments stop governing with the consent of its people then people undermine that government. It can take a long time but those governments don't last. Nobody thought the monarchy in France was going to fail until it was overthrown, communist Russia is no more and the uprising in the Arab world started when its young people could not find gainful employment. Its a messy process too.

By and large, this country's govmint has its people's consent. And what you said was also true.
Click to expand...

It's called repeating the same mistake. Replacing the old boss with the new boss, if you will.

Also, you've used consent incorrectly as if a group of people relying on coercion can somehow speak for another peaceful individual and tell them, "hey we just decided what's best for you...like it or not". That is the present mode of operation....but it's not really consent though.

If you're going to go to a Tacit Consent argument...bring it on. I'll pop that bubble too.

By the way your manner of conversation is appreciated, so please don't mistake any disagreements I may have with you for with hostility.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It's called repeating the same mistake. Replacing the old boss with the new boss, if you will.

Also, you've used consent incorrectly as if a group of people relying on coercion can somehow speak for another peaceful individual and tell them, "hey we just decided what's best for you...like it or not". That is the present mode of operation....but it's not really consent though.

If you're going to go to a Tacit Consent argument...bring it on. I'll pop that bubble too.

By the way your manner of conversation is appreciated, so please don't mistake any disagreements I may have with you for with hostility.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what a Tacit Consent argument is, but hey, if you like, go ahead and splain it to me so that you can destroy it. I might even learn something. I'll help you get started by saying "I support the Tacit Consent argument, what do you say about that!"

Philosophy. Its a great way to sharpen the mind and to get people to consider alternatives. Its just that when others were studying Kant and those other guys I was studying math, chemistry, physics and so forth. As such, I'm more facts driven than philosophy driven. Hence my arguments are rooted in what has happened and in what people do rather than how things should be. That said, we need to improve our social systems and I don't know where else to look for better ideas. So, bring your philosophical musing forward but without concrete examples of how this actually works in human society, it seems hypothetical and is lost on me. You might as well quote the bible to me. I get totally lost when people do that.

I'm not aware of an example in history where your ideas were realized in larger communities. On a smaller scale, if coercion is used to prevent gangs from controlling my street and hazarding my children then I'm all for it. Your ideas have been tried in small communal farms, but those don't usually last. A reason for this, i think, is that your ideas are not rooted in human behavior. Over time, human society has developed means other than coercion to keep us from doing each other wrong. This is all for the better but we've never been free from this element of control.

In fact, even our cousins in the primate world don't show any inclination to live in a world free of authority backed by force. The alpha male is pretty commonly a rough leader. This is why I think that your philosophy is more cerebral rather than practical.

I grew up in a pretty rough and tumble family. I love my brothers but most of the time we weren't very nice to each other. I've grown a pretty thick skin. I kind of enjoy a sharp debate and can give and take abuse. If you get aggravated and need to vent, do it with intelligence and humor and I'll be ok with it.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
You back Chesus?
Click to expand...
I thought you were making a funny by calling me chesus or jesus because most posters try to come off harder edged than I do. UB's reply tipped me off that there was in fact a poster with the moniker chesuss. I'll take back my "like", so there! Nope, not me. completely different.

I only have 51 posts. I just joined last summer. I haven't done shit as far as anything useful to this forum other than annoyed a few people. I'm not even growing my own yet. I'm lurking here trying to learn as much as I can in preparation for when growing becomes legal in Oregon. I'm chicken shit, I admit. Meanwhile, I'm stuck at home recovering from pneumonia and wasting time on this forum until I can get back with my real life.

I am enjoying the repartee with big furry, which I thought unlikely going into the discussion. And I apologize to the OP for participating allowing this thread to be so thoroughly hijacked. And I like most of the people I met at RUI.
 
Last edited:
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I thought you were making a funny by calling me chesus or jesus because most posters try to come off harder edged than I do. UB's reply tipped me off that there was in fact a poster with the moniker chesuss. I'll take back my "like", so there! Nope, not me. completely different.

I only have 51 posts. I just joined last summer. I haven't done shit as far as anything useful to this forum other than annoyed a few people. I'm not even growing my own yet. I'm lurking here trying to learn as much as I can in preparation for when growing becomes legal in Oregon. I'm chicken shit, I admit. Meanwhile, I'm stuck at home recovering from pneumonia and wasting time on this forum until I can get back with my real life.

I am enjoying the repartee with big furry, which I thought unlikely going into the discussion. And I apologize to the OP for participating allowing this thread to be so thoroughly hijacked. And I like most of the people I met at RUI.
Click to expand...
Welcome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top