Under what individual authority does government exist?

abandonconflict said:

I like how NewtoMJ managed to get such a diverse line up to attack him.

10/10

Pure win.

Click to expand...

I'm all about bringing people together

NewtoMJ said:

someone who believes in limited government such as myself.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you can't claim you believe in limited government and espouse the government has the right to impose it's will on everyone because of some "social contract" at the same ti9me.

NewtoMJ said:

I cry for abused animals. Telemarketing scams shouldn't be allowed, but I think in 60% of the incidences if the person exercised better judgement there wouldn't be a problem.

Click to expand...

So, fuck the less inteligent?

Red1966 said:

So, fuck the less inteligent?

Click to expand...

*intelligent

Red1966 said:

Sorry, you can't claim you believe in limited government and espouse the government has the right to impose it's will on everyone because of some "social contract" at the same ti9me.

Click to expand...

When you're ready to contribute constructively, instead of attacking people with ideas that scare you, then we can continue the discussion. Also, limited government doesn't imply no government. Back to the darkness with you.

NewtoMJ said:

When you're ready to contribute constructively, instead of attacking people with ideas that scare you, then we can continue the discussion. Also, limited government doesn't imply no government. Back to the darkness with you.

Click to expand...

Can you name any kind of institution based in forced coercion that qualifies as "limited government" ?

It seems a little contradictory.



Lysander Spooner quotes:

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.

He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.

Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him

Rob Roy said:

I am starting this thread to encourage a conversation about the meaning of consent.

Below is an excerpt from an editorial by Will Tippens. The full editorial is available at Strike the Root published 4/20.

Have at it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean to "consent" to something? Thanks to the increasing, if often misplaced concern over sexual assault and rape, this important question is being posed now more than ever. One recent article went viral by aptly comparing sexual consent to offering someone a "cup of tea." According to this analogy, consent is as simple as offering someone a cup of tea; if they accept, they will drink the tea. If they decline or lose capacity to consent (lose consciousness), the tea party host cannot pour it down their throat. A simple yet effective analogy.

However, the topic of consent is an extremely important legal concept, as it is not only the key element in differenting between sex and rape, but the difference between all aggression and voluntary agreements. Without the concept of 'consent,' we cannot determine if someone is going on a date or being kidnapped, loaning $20 to a friend or having it stolen, or fighting in a boxing match or being assaulted by Mike Tyson.

But the elephant in the room that no one seems to mention is that this simple yet effective definition of consent raises a far more deeply reaching question: Is our relationship with government consensual?

Click to expand...

I consented to read your thread and was mentally raped. A simple yet effective analogy.
Just because you cut and paste stupid shit, that you believe, doesn't mean the idiot shit smell is removed.

Dadioski said:

I consented to read your thread and was mentally raped. A simple yet effective analogy.
Just because you cut and paste stupid shit, that you believe, doesn't mean the idiot shit smell is removed.

Click to expand...

If you consented you weren't raped.

I heard you moaning in pleasure too, don't lie.

Rob Roy said:

If you consented you weren't raped.

Click to expand...

i bet you tell that to all the children you paid on a "consensual basis" to do a "voluntary act" to your genitals you sick fuck.

UncleBuck said:

i bet you tell that to all the children you paid on a "consensual basis" to do a "voluntary act" to your genitals you sick fuck.

Click to expand...

Nice try Poopy Pants. You seem to derive some perverse pleasure from your distortions.

Have you ever considered therapy? It could uncover why you think shitting on floors is gratifying. It would also be good for you to put your memories of the bad man to rest once and for all. Please consider getting some help.

Rob Roy said:

Nice try Poopy Pants. You seem to derive some perverse pleasure from your distortions.

Have you ever considered therapy? It could uncover why you think shitting on floors is gratifying. It would also be good for you to put your memories of the bad man to rest once and for all. Please consider getting some help.

Click to expand...

i am not distorting anything, and you are the one who needs therapy since you apparently think that children can consent to having sex with you for money.

UncleBuck said:

i am not distorting anything, and you are the one who needs therapy since you apparently think that children can consent to having sex with you for money.

Click to expand...

How come you can't answer a simple question?

How does the nature of an act, even a heinous one, change whether or not it was consented to?



If you consented to shitting on a floor, a heinous act, does that mean you need therapy, potty training or both?

Rob Roy said:

How come you can't answer a simple question?

How does the nature of an act, even a heinous one, change whether or not it was consented to?



If you consented to shitting on a floor, a heinous act, does that mean you need therapy, potty training or both?

Click to expand...

why can't you understand a simple answer: children cannot consent to having sex with you for money you sick pedo fuck.

UncleBuck said:

why can't you understand a simple answer: children cannot consent to having sex with you for money you sick pedo fuck.

Click to expand...

It is a simpleton answer, you're getting better. Yes, the words do sound a bit alike, moron.

The question wasn't what do you believe, it was why is it so or not so. Your inability to answer that means you have none and that you prefer to keep typing with one hand in your pants, getting a thrill from internet absurdity that you in your sick way get a thrill from.

I just hope you washed your hands first.

Rob Roy said:

It is a simpleton answer, you're getting better. Yes, the words do sound a bit alike, moron.

The question wasn't what do you believe, it was why is it so or not so. Your inability to answer that means you have none and that you prefer to keep typing with one hand in your pants, getting a thrill from internet absurdity that you in your sick way get a thrill from.

I just hope you washed your hands first.

Click to expand...

i'm telling you why it is so, spaMBLA.

children cannot consent to having sex with you, even if you pay them.

NewtoMJ said:

When you're ready to contribute constructively, instead of attacking people with ideas that scare you, then we can continue the discussion. Also, limited government doesn't imply no government. Back to the darkness with you.

Click to expand...

I didn't attack you. I stated you were wrong. I presented evidence to substantiate my statement. That's not an attack. Pretending you have somehow been aggreived as an excuse to end the discussion is the act of a coward. You promoted a idea of unlimited government authority, then try to claim you're in favor of "limited government". Really?

UncleBuck said:

i'm telling you why it is so, spaMBLA.

children cannot consent to having sex with you, even if you pay them.

Click to expand...

Not the answer to the repeated question I've asked though dolt.

Can children consent to shit on floors? Isn't that a heinous act too?

Your inability to answer questions is exceeded only by your inability to understand them.
'

Rob Roy said:

Not the answer to the repeated question I've asked though dolt.

Can children consent to shit on floors? Isn't that a heinous act too?

Your inability to answer questions is exceeded only by your inability to understand them.
'

Click to expand...

i'm telling you, spaMBLA, children cannot consent to have sex with you for money. drop it already you sick pedo fuck!

Red1966 said:

I didn't attack you. I stated you were wrong. I presented evidence to substantiate my statement. That's not an attack. Pretending you have somehow been aggreived as an excuse to end the discussion is the act of a coward. You promoted a idea of unlimited government authority, then try to claim you're in favor of "limited government". Really?

Click to expand...

I never claimed I am in favor of limited government authority, on your own property, you should be able to do what you want. But if a large group of people choose to give up a portion of their freedom to a small body of individuals, for the convenience of their services, then you can't be upset because they are going to force you to play by their rules when you want to use those services.

To give an example, let's pretend you own 100 acres of property, you farm and raise livestock there and you never leave those 100 acres because everything you want you produce there. You have also been given the option to elect to forego the services of the police and fire dept. Because you are self contained i
Believe you should be free from taxes and such, because the government has received no burden from you. Now you choose to open a store on these 100 acres, again you are self contained, the government has no right to tell you how that store is run, or maintained.

Now, you live on this 100 acres, self contained but now you want to sell some of your produce in town. So you walk into town to buy a truck, now you have to use public roads, to bring your truck back home and again to bring the produce to market. Then, I believe you are obligated to pay the taxes, follow the production standards and obey the laws of the govt for everything you are going to do outside your 100 acres.

NewtoMJ said:

I never claimed I am in favor of limited government authority, on your own property, you should be able to do what you want. But if a large group of people choose to give up a portion of their freedom to a small body of individuals, for the convenience of their services, then you can't be upset because they are going to force you to play by their rules when you want to use those services.

To give an example, let's pretend you own 100 acres of property, you farm and raise livestock there and you never leave those 100 acres because everything you want you produce there. You have also been given the option to elect to forego the services of the police and fire dept. Because you are self contained i
Believe you should be free from taxes and such, because the government has received no burden from you. Now you choose to open a store on these 100 acres, again you are self contained, the government has no right to tell you how that store is run, or maintained.

Now, you live on this 100 acres, self contained but now you want to sell some of your produce in town. So you walk into town to buy a truck, now you have to use public roads, to bring your truck back home and again to bring the produce to market. Then, I believe you are obligated to pay the taxes, follow the production standards and obey the laws of the govt for everything you are going to do outside your 100 acres.

Click to expand...

That limited at the top should be unlimited. My kindle is constantly changing words on me.