US mother accidentally shot dead by two-year-old son

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If we're unwilling to elect some outside force to settle the dispute, this is where voluntaryism would become anarchy I imagine.
Except the "outside force" needn't hold a coercive monopoly on the role of dispute settler. There could be multiple competing providers of that service.

In fact when the "outside force" does hold a coercive monopoly on the role of dispute settler, they become part of the problem.

You might find this an interesting website - http://voluntaryist.com/
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I am trying to elect Trump. The other candidates have been politicians for decades.
I appreciate that Donald Trump seems to be less interventionist than he was.

Yet, even if he gets to be President, I prefer to have no master and will decline his offer of being "my leader". I can do that right? Peacefully decline his offer to be my "leader" or master ?
 

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
As long as that p.o.s. obliterates our national debt, I'll forgive him for being an asshole. He's good at defaulting and bankruptcies so that's all I ask.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Bernie was an activist for the people long before he was a politician.
Except Bernie is a hypocrite. He voted with Hillary over 90% of the time.

He says he's against "big banks" and the military industrial complex. Yet, he voted to raise the debt ceiling (good for big banks) and voted to continue to fund the Pentagon multiple times and defends the F-35 program in Vermont.

In other words, Bernie says one thing, and does another.
 

ColoHead

Well-Known Member
As long as that p.o.s. obliterates our national debt, I'll forgive him for being an asshole. He's good at defaulting and bankruptcies so that's all I ask.
Fasten your seatbelt!

Things would get a lot worse than they did with the great depression given our current population:
 

ColoHead

Well-Known Member
Except the "outside force" needn't hold a coercive monopoly on the role of dispute settler. There could be multiple competing providers of that service.

In fact when the "outside force" does hold a coercive monopoly on the role of dispute settler, they become part of the problem.

You might find this an interesting website - http://voluntaryist.com/
Thank you. I'll familiarize myself with these concepts a bit more and come back to chat.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
If we're unwilling to elect some outside force to settle the dispute, this is where voluntaryism would become anarchy I imagine.
I have no idea where you are on the political spectrum but you are a pretty smart guy.

The balance is how much freedom and income to give away for the perception of safety. I would prefer to give away less freedom and income for the current perception of safety.

I would like to be able to decide for myself what substances I choose to put in my body. I accept that there may be consequences if I harm other people's property or persons from these actions.
 

ColoHead

Well-Known Member
I have no idea where you are on the political spectrum but you are a pretty smart guy.

The balance is how much freedom and income to give away for the perception of safety. I would prefer to give away less freedom and income for the current perception of safety.

I would like to be able to decide for myself what substances I choose to put in my body. I accept that there may be consequences if I harm other people's property or persons from these actions.
I'm not represented by a party that exists in the current political spectrum and I've lost pretty much all hope that we have a healthy or working political system left.

I think that it's unfortunate that these corporate states of america have her citizen's thinking in the binary context you're declaring. The last two presidents, first a republican, then a democrat, trounced all over your personal freedoms. Neither democrat nor republican is even really talking about the appropriateness of our current military industrial complex spending. We (our corporate oppressors) have essentially decided this spending will remain in perpetuity (ratifying the 16th amendment in 1913) after fundraising to finance WWI. Why not? there's big business in war...

I would surmise that the move to the federal reserve system, planned in meetings in 1910 predetermined the need for the constant taxation allowed by ratifying the 16th amendment. Essentially, our government opened up a line of credit against the taxes on income created by us, her citizens.

I also really believe that most of us have more common ground than we realize, and that I also believe we would do really well to leave the scripted talking points in the garbage. Think outside the confines of the presented binary conclusions. Just because something is presented as (a or b) doesn't mean we can't say, fuck all of that, how about c.

I believe you should retain your freedom, your income, your right to your own body and your right to explore your own consciousness. And so should everyone else. What happens though when one of our fellow citizens is unable to care for themselves? How free and enlightened are we if we walk by and ignore our brother or sister? Are we willing to let their life fail because we're free to be unencumbered, regardless? I appreciate the passion for personal freedom and liberty, but what is that, really, if we're all a bunch of assholes - completely lacking in empathy for our fellow man?

At this point our corporate overlords have got the masses pinned into two idealogical camps: (For life at birth, gun control, universally available health care and managed immigration) vs (for life at conception, full gun freedoms, pay your own damn way healthcare and using forceful means to deter immigration). People usually find enough common in one camp or another to back a candidate, and when they get their chosen representative elected, are subject to whatever their candidate promised all the corporations and bedfellows that helped them get into office. They don't care about the ideology they promoted to get your vote, only that they'll be walking away from their tenure in political office with a plush bank account and a primed career.

All of this, is what we the people really need to tear down.

I do my best not to mix my own personal moral convictions with my politics. There are many things that I don't personally espouse, some even from my own concepts of morality, that I would nonetheless fight for another's right's regarding. I believe this separation is integral to being able to approach topics like government formation with your fellow man/woman.

Most don't know this, but our founding fathers were largely following tenants of Deism not Christianity as their religious base.

Truthfully, we were provided by our founding forefathers, a political system that needs constant upkeep and maintenance. Who want's all that when the Kardashians are doing whatever the hell it is we care so much about and our favorite sport team is kicking ass!

I'm not saying 'entertainment' is bad, just that we need to get our shit together and pay attention.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Offensive force is used when people INITIATE aggression against a person or their justly acquired property.
yes, you define the desegregation of lunch counters as "offensive force". we know that.

your fellow klan members do too.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Why all the racist accusations?
because he thinks it is "polite and reasonable" to hang a sign that says "no blacks allowed".

also, he refuses to say that it should be illegal to have sex with 10 year olds. that speaks to his pedophilia though.
 

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
Fasten your seatbelt!

Things would get a lot worse than they did with the great depression given our current population:
Awarewe nvr know, some things are difficult to predict. We're in cycle. Without getting too cerebral... ALIENS. *resets pacemaker with toaster*
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
yes, you define the desegregation of lunch counters as "offensive force". we know that.

your fellow klan members do too.

In the context of the topic, I define offensive force as being applied by the person or person(s) attempting to control others and their property.

When some people attempt to control another person and/or their property without the explicit consent of the property owner, would you describe that as offensive force or defensive force?

I bet you can't answer the question on point.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
because he thinks it is "polite and reasonable" to hang a sign that says "no blacks allowed".

also, he refuses to say that it should be illegal to have sex with 10 year olds. that speaks to his pedophilia though.

I don't like the content of the sign, but since I don't own the property, I don't feel its my right to take away another persons right to control their own property. I would not give a person that hung a sign like that my business, while respecting their right to run (destroy) their business as they see fit, as long as they confine it to their property.

As far as your favorite topic, pedoism (if that is even a word) I'm pretty sure you did not have the wherewithal to consent to sex at the age of 10, since your mental development seemed slower than most, as evidenced by your depositing a steaming turd on the floor of a bathroom at the age of 17.

I view "legal" and "illegal" different than you do, I don't use them synonymously with right and wrong as you seem to.
So your assertion when applied to me, is an attempt to convey meaning that is nonsensical. I don't hold the same superstition as you that government which arises from coercion can also be the arbiter of justice. It is a logical impossibility.

Plus, you are a Poopy Pants.
 
Top