is this the middle ages?

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Not to be rude, but my explanations have been on point and some of the "arguments" here have been rather trashy

that is your perception of the situation....and yours alone

 

[Rob Roy]

If was fun thrashing you. Done for the day. You can go back to "winning".


Consider it a public service. Some people are too stupid to post on the internet.

I never left winning.

So you're going to run away before offering your thoughts on collateral damage ? Pity, I'm sure you could have schooled me good.

 

[Lord Kanti]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46145986


this happened just south of our border? our enlightened neighbors to the south just roasted two men on the say so of an asshole with a facebook account?.....i don't understand this....i've met a lot of mexicans, and none of them seemed stupid enough to participate in something like this....are they different when they're in mexico? it doesn't even matter if they were right, and both of these men were guilty as hell....
i'm shocked that something like this can happen in the civilized world.....perpetrated by civilized people....don't they realize that shit like this just gives trump and his asshole cadre ammunition in the fight against immigration......of course, if this is considered acceptable behavior by mexicans....maybe they should just stay in mexico.....

Who needs walls with neighbors like this!

 

[londonfog]

I'm saying you have a right to control your body and your property. How does your trashy trash scenario rebut what I'm saying ?

Are you saying the trash and any exudation is remaining OFF my property? Are you saying people don't have a right to seek out the source of a property right violation (the origin of the trash exudation of slurpy poopy liquids etc) ?

You can't delegate a right you don't possess". The trash is not on your property. Only pilling up in front of it. What right do you have with things not on your property ?

 

[Rob Roy]

so private armies that answer only to their employers are your answer to a central coercive authority? a decentralized coercive authority?

When you have a dispute resolution service, how many people would voluntarily still do business with you if it became known that you had no interest in resolving disputes ?

If you had multiple options like you would in a free market scenario, would you give your business to the one you suspected of only being interested in consolidating power thru coercion? No, you wouldn't.

There's more to it than that, but frankly in order to discuss it with you, you'll need to be a bit more open to discussing things which aren't impossible and lose the preconceived notion that what you think you know isn't really just a superstition. I don't mean that to be a dick either.

 

[Rob Roy]

You can't delegate a right you don't possess". The trash is not on your property. Only pilling up in front of it. What right do you have with things not on your property ?

I remain on my property and hurl dung at you while you stand on your property thru the bars of my monkey cage.

I am initiating an offensive action against you, a neutral person. I have ceased to control only MY property and have inflicted myself onto YOUR property. Don't be a numb nuts.

 

[Rob Roy]

Nah, You being a loser doesn't depend on your consent that you are a loser. Some things are just self evident. Like the fact that several of us have clearly illustrated that your pathetic worldview would be a nightmare.

This is why we formed a government that still exists despite the non-consent of a bunch of sociopaths.

Sorry, you lose every day you wake up in that society and are governed by those laws. If you were half a man you would find a nice boat and sail into international waters where you can be free.

Except the government you think you formed invented alternate terms. They call murder, when they do it, collateral damage. They call theft, when they do it, something else etc.

Fine group of friends you have there.


Also, government in the form you refer to, doesn't exist, it's really just a superstitious faith based belief, like many religions. That's demonstrably provable by the way. MAYBE, after you hang your head in shame for fawningly embracing conceptual institutions that would word smith terms like "collateral damage" we can discuss that.

 

[Rob Roy]

that is your perception of the situation....and yours alone

Okay then, tell me how you can create a central coercion based authority and that will be the thing which will then do away with central coercion based authorities ?

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

When you have a dispute resolution service, how many people would voluntarily still do business with you if it became known that you had no interest in resolving disputes ?

If you had multiple options like you would in a free market scenario, would you give your business to the one you suspected of only being interested in consolidating power thru coercion? No, you wouldn't.

There's more to it than that, but frankly in order to discuss it with you, you'll need to be a bit more open to discussing things which aren't impossible and lose the preconceived notion that what you think you know isn't really just a superstition. I don't mean that to be a dick either.

you seem to think that people would go to "arbiters" and abide by the arbitration process....why would they do that? whose making them go? whose making them abide by the decisions? arbitration requires either agreement by the winner and the loser, or some means to force the loser to abide....not everyone wants arbitration....not everyone will agree to it....what do you do then?

 

[londonfog]

I remain on my property and hurl dung at you while you stand on your property thru the bars of my monkey cage.

I am initiating an offensive action against you, a neutral person. I have ceased to control only MY property and have inflicted myself onto YOUR property. Don't be a numb nuts.

You can't delegate a right you don't possess" would mean you can do nothing if it is not on your property...again what is your water source

 

[Rob Roy]

you seem to think that people would go to "arbiters" and abide by the arbitration process....why would they do that? whose making them go? whose making them abide by the decisions? arbitration requires either agreement by the winner and the loser, or some means to force the loser to abide....not everyone wants arbitration....not everyone will agree to it....what do you do then?

Unfortunately, most people follow what they are born into. That's the reason why slavery persisted in it's old form so long and had to morph into it's present form. Until people lose respect for arbitrary authority instead of respect for right and wrong, that will persist. The way to effectuate positive changes is thru the advancement of ideas and dropping preconceived notions that when examined cave in from their own contradictions.

If there were only one place you could get food, and that place was the final authority on how all the food would be administered, would that be better or worse than a diverse and voluntary way to administer things to do with food?

 

[Rob Roy]

You can't delegate a right you don't possess" would mean you can do nothing if it is not on your property...again what is your water source

So you don't want a clean shirt ?

If I am capable of hurling a dung snowball at your head at 87 mph from my property causing your head to explode like a piñata it's okay and you don't have any right to stop me? I'm not sure I've made that claim. Could you point out where I have?

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Okay then, tell me how you can create a central coercion based authority and that will be the thing which will then do away with central coercion based authorities ?

what will you provide in it's place? that's what i've been asking you since the beginning. you have plenty of examples of whats wrong...we all know what's wrong....what is your solution....what is your answer to the question "what do you have to offer as an alternative?"
all you've offered so far is private armies that report only to their masters....and forced arbitration.....neither one seems very conductive to freedom

 

[Rob Roy]

what will you provide in it's place? that's what i've been asking you since the beginning. you have plenty of examples of whats wrong...we all know what's wrong....what is your solution....what is your answer to the question "what do you have to offer as an alternative?"
all you've offered so far is private armies that report only to their masters....and forced arbitration.....neither one seems very conductive to freedom

Your opening line is a reasonable question.

You other commentary seems to draw conclusions in isolation though and discards the obvious probably due to your fear of the unknown...

What ever is impossible, is impossible. So it's not possible to use a coercion based central authority to do away with coercion based central authorities. Therefore you MUST do something different. Does that make sense to you?

BTW, thanks for trying to stay on topic. Appreciated.

 

[schuylaar]

Who needs walls with neighbors like this!

roasted people smell like lamb.

 

[londonfog]

So you don't want a clean shirt ?

If I am capable of hurling a dung snowball at your head at 87 mph from my property causing your head to explode like a piñata it's okay and you don't have any right to stop me? I'm not sure I've made that claim. Could you point out where I have?

so now you are resulting to violence to stop something that is not according on your property. You can't delegate a right you don't possess" and you lost

 

[Rob Roy]

so now you are resulting to violence to stop something that is not according on your property. You can't delegate a right you don't possess" and you lost

Not quite.

I don't have a right to use offensive force against you or your justly acquired property. I do have the right to use defensive force to repel offensive force or gain restitution against a person(s).
Do you agree with that ?

Also how would you define property ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Not quite.

I don't have a right to use offensive force against you or your justly acquired property. I do have the right to use defensive force to repel offensive force or gain restitution against a person(s).
Do you agree with that ?

Also how would you define property ?

You call a black person shopping “offensive force”

 

[Rob Roy]

You call a black person shopping “offensive force”

Not really. I call it irrelevant, to my point.

I think it would be great if a persons race wasn't something that other people used to judge them by. I think it's a stupid way to judge people. I wish racist business owners didn't exist. I have a right to talk smack about them and to spend my money with more enlightened businesses. You have that right too. However none of that matters.

I, nor you, nor a collection of people, none of us have the right to use or threaten offensive force against another neutral person to force them to serve us, especially on their property. That right doesn't exist. If it does exist, can you tell me where it comes from, if you and I don't possess it? No, you can't.


When you disregard the means you use to achieve the outcome you desire, you will often create unintended consequences. There are other ways to put racists in their place than by trying to rationalize using offensive force. Even a racists has a right not to be forced to serve another person against their will.

 

[Rob Roy]

there are no police, you got rid of them, because they were coercive. no one has trespassed on either ones private property...this guy just really likes being where your mom is...can't coerce him to go away, because that will make him a slave....so get used to him being around your mom

You may have misinterpreted my reply to London Fog regarding the creepy stranger lusting after my mom in London's fascinating story. I am not saying there should be a so called "public property" as it exists today. I was reflecting back to London one of the aspects of so called public property. Not sure if you were aware of that.