Come watch crybabies cry about gay rights!

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
well, not true. because when (in the case of death) you need proof of marriage or you don't get any spousal benefits.

yes true it is part of government so therefore not a right however, we hire the government and the 1% runs it.

i do question authority every day but in measured amounts, if you don't you become labeled.
Click to expand...

If you continually ponder the wrong questions, you will continually contemplate the wrong answers.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so does your son know that you think he should be treated as lesser of a person because he is gay, and not have the same freedom as straight people because of it?

why are you against gay people having the same freedom as straight people?
Click to expand...

Gay people should have the right same right as everyone else to control their OWN body and their OWN property.

Gay people should have the same right as everyone else to control other people and other peoples property as everyone else...which is none.

I am consistent, you are not.


My son is not a lesser person, he has the same right to SELF determination as you or I do.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
how do you know which questions are 'right'? who deems them to be 'right' or 'wrong', you?
Click to expand...
If a persons core philosophy is based on peaceful human interactions, it's not so hard to measure things to that standard.



From a voluntaryist website...

Introduction
Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.


The Means-End Argument

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political." Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man's freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man's freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life.

- Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
My son is not a lesser person, he has the same right to SELF determination as you or I do.
Click to expand...
except in your utopia, he can't enter the same stores as you can because he is gay, and you would tell him he's a rapist and a slave owner if he tried to enter the same stores you did.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If a persons core philosophy is based on peaceful human interactions, it's not so hard to measure things to that standard.



From a voluntaryist website...

Introduction
Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.


The Means-End Argument

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political." Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man's freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man's freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life.

- Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.
Click to expand...

so, there is measurement of standard..to do this there must be rulez:mrgreen:

hit me with more spam!

wymyn and chykin, first!
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
good point.

it is not wise to trust the judgment of people like robby, who think that segregation makes us freer and pedophilia is a voluntary act.
Click to expand...

Excuse me sir, your teeth...there's still a little something stuck in them.

Why is that baby crying? it sounds like it's in pain.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
so, there is measurement of standard..to do this there must be rulez:mrgreen:

hit me with more spam!

wymyn and chykin, first!
Click to expand...

Yes, the "rules" are you own yourself, but no people (both singular and plural) own other individuals. Those "rules" affirm my philosophy and puts your erm "philosophy" in the right persepective, they show it is based on coercion.




When did I ever say I was in favor of "no rules" as you imply?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Yes, the "rules" are you own yourself, but no people (both singular and plural) own other individuals. Those "rules" affirm my philosophy and puts your erm "philosophy" in the right persepective, they show it is based on coercion.




When did I ever say I was in favor of "no rules" as you imply?
Click to expand...
but to live free as you wish, there would be no rules.
 
Darth Vapour

Darth Vapour

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
well, not true. because when (in the case of death) you need proof of marriage or you don't get any spousal benefits.

yes true it is part of government so therefore not a right however, we hire the government and the 1% runs it.

i do question authority every day but in measured amounts, if you don't you become labeled.
Click to expand...
Again that is also not true all you need to prove is that you lived common law and common comes into play usually 3 - 6 months under same roof :) no marriage needed to prove shit . simple income tax return maybe ???? or simple power bill in both names can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the time frame
there fore marriage is really just a piece of paper / or a religion :)
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
but to live free as you wish, there would be no rules.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid you are failing comprehension 101, but are excelling at making shit up and filling in the blanks when you don't understand something. You score an incomplete and have to stay after school and clap some chalk erasers .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top