Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your restating of what presently happens is not the same as refuting my assertion that a third party intervenes and uses force to create an interaction that one party would prefer not to have.
I am aware of the circumstances of what happens now, the attendant laws etc, my point is those laws facilitate nonconsensual interactions and deprive one party (at least) of their right to participate in a human interaction on a consensual basis. NOBODY here has ever refuted that....know why? They can't.
@ Abandon Conflict has presented some argument that attempts to refute it by pretending there is no such thing as a property right, all of the other arguments people have put forth to refute it rely on an emotional plea / rationalization rather than anything consistent with their belief in a property right. In some ways his argument is consistent, but still doesn't satisfy the irrational idea that thru force peace is achieved or explain how there is no such thing as a property right.
Last edited:
