Some are more equal than others...

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
That's not the issue, do you have the right to do it in front of/next to someone who believes the opposite of you, that they have the right to sit in their back yard and enjoy themselves without dealing with the smoke that comes onto their property?

I'd really like to see how you actually answer this because this is an example of one of those situations I had in mind when I said what you believe simply can't exist in the real world. There is no such thing as "unlimited freedom" for everyone. Somewhere along the line, your freedom is going to conflict with my freedom, and without anyone/anything there to objectively say who is right, it's essentially you v. me, and throughout human history those situations tend to end favoring the bigger, stronger, more physically intimidating person. I'm sure you can foresee how that usually ends, which is why government exists in the first place.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -James Madison, Federalist 51
Difference between burning a joint and a BBQ where smoke is concerned? There is much more smoke from a BBQ. Your hypothetical is a bit out there (unless you live in Cal where they can keep you from smoking cigs even in your own place). If pot were legal, I doubt there is a judge anywhere that would even listen to a whiny bitch saying "I don't like the smell" unless that smell is from toxic pollutants.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Difference between burning a joint and a BBQ where smoke is concerned? There is much more smoke from a BBQ. Your hypothetical is a bit out there (unless you live in Cal where they can keep you from smoking cigs even in your own place). If pot were legal, I doubt there is a judge anywhere that would even listen to a whiny bitch saying "I don't like the smell" unless that smell is from toxic pollutants.
I'm still curious how RR would answer that question
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
That's not the issue, do you have the right to do it in front of/next to someone who believes the opposite of you, that they have the right to sit in their back yard and enjoy themselves without dealing with the smoke that comes onto their property?

I'd really like to see how you actually answer this because this is an example of one of those situations I had in mind when I said what you believe simply can't exist in the real world. There is no such thing as "unlimited freedom" for everyone. Somewhere along the line, your freedom is going to conflict with my freedom, and without anyone/anything there to objectively say who is right, it's essentially you v. me, and throughout human history those situations tend to end favoring the bigger, stronger, more physically intimidating person. I'm sure you can foresee how that usually ends, which is why government exists in the first place.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." -James Madison, Federalist 51
If your smoke goes onto their property, they could have a claim to some kind of victim status....Of course you could just offer them a toke. If you don't "victimize" somebody in a real and actionable way, they need to mind their own business, if you remain on your property.

You can do anything you want with YOUR property, but not theirs, is the answer, that's why property rights are important to establish as a basis.
 

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
We have "spare the air" days where I live. On such days you aren't allowed to burn in your homes fireplace. They drive around and look for chimney smoke. If you are caught burning you get fined. They say it is because they are trying to protect people with asthma.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
If your smoke goes onto their property, they could have a claim to some kind of victim status....Of course you could just offer them a toke. If you don't "victimize" somebody in a real and actionable way, they need to mind their own business, if you remain on your property.

You can do anything you want with YOUR property, but not theirs, is the answer, that's why property rights are important to establish as a basis.
You remain on your property, but your actions affect them in a way they feel impedes their rights to enjoy their own property just like everyone else. So who is to say if a victim is created or not if there is no government? Who is to enforce anything if you're the type of person who doesn't give a shit what your neighbor thinks? How does this problem get solved in your ideal world?

To avoid your 'property rights' argument, say this situation took place in a public square where property wasn't involved. You believe you have the right to smoke in public, somebody else believes they have the right to not have to be subject to your smoke in public. Who's right and how do you determine it?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You remain on your property, but your actions affect them in a way they feel impedes their rights to enjoy their own property just like everyone else. So who is to say if a victim is created or not if there is no government? Who is to enforce anything if you're the type of person who doesn't give a shit what your neighbor thinks? How does this problem get solved in your ideal world?

To avoid your 'property rights' argument, say this situation took place in a public square where property wasn't involved. You believe you have the right to smoke in public, somebody else believes they have the right to not have to be subject to your smoke in public. Who's right and how do you determine it?
In "my ideal world" there wouldn't be public property as it presently is purported to exist. First off it isn't really public property, it is government controlled, not really controlled by the term we are trained to use, "the people". There would be owned property, and unowned property. Unowned property should be homesteaded and then it becomes "owned".

Problems can get resolved in a number of ways, mediation is one way. I don't think that justice administration is best administered when the justice administrator role (coercive government) is held in a monopoly on the use of force, as it presently exists. The unchained free market would give rise to the best mediators as a free market aligns the interest of the consumer and the service provider. In the present paradigm, the coercive government mediator gets paid whether they do a fair job or not, they never get the necessary market feedback that free market competition provides.

In other words, if property is owned, THAT person decides what will happen on THAT property. Not some other person.

Government creates more victims than it has ever helped.

What you might really be asking is how in the absence of a central coercive authority, could disputes be resolved?
I have to go pick somebody up now...maybe later I will be back on.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Equality.... at all costs...View attachment 3370590
Yep, the drone program is fucking abhorrent.. Something like 3% targets destroyed and 97% collateral damage..

In other words, murdered innocent men, women and children in an attempt to eliminate a terrorist..

3%...

This program still exists..

Women and children..

Pakistan:

Total strikes: 413
Obama strikes: 362
Total killed: 2,442-3,942
Civilians killed: 421-960
Children killed: 172-207
Injured: 1,142-1,720

Yemen:

Confirmed drone strikes: 90-109
Total killed: 431-639
Civilians killed: 65-96
Children killed: 8
Injured: 86-215

Possible extra drone strikes: 73-89
Total killed: 311-445
Civilians killed: 26-61
Children killed: 6-9
Injured: 78-105

Other covert operations: 15-72
Total killed: 156-365
Civilians killed: 68-99
Children killed: 26-28
Injured: 15-102

Somalia:

Drone strikes: 8-12
Total killed: 20-102
Civilians killed: 0-5
Children killed: 0
Injured: 2-7

Other covert operations: 8-12
Total killed: 43-144
Civilians killed: 7-47
Children killed: 0-2
Injured: 11-21

Afghanistan:

Confirmed strikes: 5
Total killed: 35-44
Civilians killed: 0
Children killed: 0
Injured: 0

Possible extra strikes: 3
Total killed: 12
Civilians killed: 0-1
Children killed: 0-1
Injured: 3
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Yep, the drone program is fucking abhorrent.. Something like 3% targets destroyed and 97% collateral damage..

In other words, murdered innocent men, women and children in an attempt to eliminate a terrorist..

3%...

This program still exists..

Women and children..

Pakistan:

Total strikes: 413
Obama strikes: 362
Total killed: 2,442-3,942
Civilians killed: 421-960
Children killed: 172-207
Injured: 1,142-1,720

Yemen:

Confirmed drone strikes: 90-109
Total killed: 431-639
Civilians killed: 65-96
Children killed: 8
Injured: 86-215

Possible extra drone strikes: 73-89
Total killed: 311-445
Civilians killed: 26-61
Children killed: 6-9
Injured: 78-105

Other covert operations: 15-72
Total killed: 156-365
Civilians killed: 68-99
Children killed: 26-28
Injured: 15-102

Somalia:

Drone strikes: 8-12
Total killed: 20-102
Civilians killed: 0-5
Children killed: 0
Injured: 2-7

Other covert operations: 8-12
Total killed: 43-144
Civilians killed: 7-47
Children killed: 0-2
Injured: 11-21

Afghanistan:

Confirmed strikes: 5
Total killed: 35-44
Civilians killed: 0
Children killed: 0
Injured: 0

Possible extra strikes: 3
Total killed: 12
Civilians killed: 0-1
Children killed: 0-1
Injured: 3
Damn
sick
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
We have "spare the air" days where I live. On such days you aren't allowed to burn in your homes fireplace. They drive around and look for chimney smoke. If you are caught burning you get fined. They say it is because they are trying to protect people with asthma.
sounds more like a pretense to supply the city with another source of revenue.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Yep, the drone program is fucking abhorrent.. Something like 3% targets destroyed and 97% collateral damage..

In other words, murdered innocent men, women and children in an attempt to eliminate a terrorist..

3%...

This program still exists..

Women and children..

Pakistan:

Total strikes: 413
Obama strikes: 362
Total killed: 2,442-3,942
Civilians killed: 421-960
Children killed: 172-207
Injured: 1,142-1,720

Yemen:

Confirmed drone strikes: 90-109
Total killed: 431-639
Civilians killed: 65-96
Children killed: 8
Injured: 86-215

Possible extra drone strikes: 73-89
Total killed: 311-445
Civilians killed: 26-61
Children killed: 6-9
Injured: 78-105

Other covert operations: 15-72
Total killed: 156-365
Civilians killed: 68-99
Children killed: 26-28
Injured: 15-102

Somalia:

Drone strikes: 8-12
Total killed: 20-102
Civilians killed: 0-5
Children killed: 0
Injured: 2-7

Other covert operations: 8-12
Total killed: 43-144
Civilians killed: 7-47
Children killed: 0-2
Injured: 11-21

Afghanistan:

Confirmed strikes: 5
Total killed: 35-44
Civilians killed: 0
Children killed: 0
Injured: 0

Possible extra strikes: 3
Total killed: 12
Civilians killed: 0-1
Children killed: 0-1
Injured: 3
Are we at war with Pakistan?
 

Hazydat620

Well-Known Member
In "my ideal world" there wouldn't be public property as it presently is purported to exist. First off it isn't really public property, it is government controlled, not really controlled by the term we are trained to use, "the people". There would be owned property, and unowned property. Unowned property should be homesteaded and then it becomes "owned".

Problems can get resolved in a number of ways, mediation is one way. I don't think that justice administration is best administered when the justice administrator role (coercive government) is held in a monopoly on the use of force, as it presently exists. The unchained free market would give rise to the best mediators as a free market aligns the interest of the consumer and the service provider. In the present paradigm, the coercive government mediator gets paid whether they do a fair job or not, they never get the necessary market feedback that free market competition provides.

In other words, if property is owned, THAT person decides what will happen on THAT property. Not some other person.

Government creates more victims than it has ever helped.

What you might really be asking is how in the absence of a central coercive authority, could disputes be resolved?
I have to go pick somebody up now...maybe later I will be back on.
Who gets to decide who gets to homestead it? whoever gets there first? Whoever can defend it better, what if I want that piece of land to homestead, who has rights to it? Who ever wins an old fashioned duel? Are you saying we should hit the reset button and have a mass free for all land grab again? How much land you think your old ass would be able to acquire in something like that?
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Are we at war with Pakistan?
Are we "at war" with anyone besides us heads?

I thought there had to be a declaration of war from congress? What we are doing is just dropping a few bombs on sovereign countries land, that's only called war if it's done to us, not by us.

I've read enough of these boards to know it's all republican's fault though, so there's that, which is nice.
 

kelly4

Well-Known Member


What if smoking weed bothers your neighbor? Are you really "leaving people alone"?


If it bothers them, they are probably conservative. If they are conservative, they are probably religious. Just tell them it was God's will for them to smell it and that Jesus loves them.
 
Top