Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
They don't. Nor do they have the right to make other people use their justly acquired property or body in ways they prefer not to.

You insist that indifference to a person is the same as initiating aggression (actionable harm). That can only mean you don't believe that individuals can truly own property or you give a pass to your coercive government to do things to people and their property that individuals cannot morally do.

Since I know you do believe that individuals can own property, I'm left with the idea that you want government force to be applied to people that leave others alone and remain on their own property who hold different beliefs than you do. THAT is why you share the same mindset as a prohibitionist. You think the initiation of force by a coercive government against an otherwise peaceful person is acceptable.

I know you've been trained to think that a racist has NO rights, but their right to control their own body and their property is the same as yours and mine Comrade. Conversely a racist, like you, like me, have no right to control others property, neither does your nanny state.
Click to expand...
If it weren't for the state, they would have no property.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Might makes right. The fact that you cannot hurt me and I can end your life easily is what makes us wonderful neighbors. Could be the other way around, but probably not.
Click to expand...
When you put up a boundary and appropriate land, you need force to defend it.

Good ideas don't require force. That is the mantra of the person I was debating with when you stepped in to defend him.

The original statement to which you took issue was that one could not have property in the absence of a state. If there is an absence of a state and you put a boundary around an area, backing the area by force, you are then doing what states do.

The state exists to protect property.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
When you put up a boundary and appropriate land, you need force to defend it.
Click to expand...
No, you only need force to defend it if someone else decides they are going to try and take it, if no one wants what I have, I have no reason to use force of any kind.

The state only protects the property of the weak.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
No, you only need force to defend it if someone else decides they are going to try and take it, if no one wants what I have, I have no reason to use force of any kind.

The state only protects the property of the weak.
Click to expand...
You aren't as tough as you think you are.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
you want government force to be applied to people that leave others alone and remain on their own property who hold different beliefs than you do.
Click to expand...
people who own a gas station that kicks out black people are not "leaving others alone", they are causing harm.

this is documented historical fact you fucking retard.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
people who own a gas station that kicks out black people are not "leaving others alone", they are causing harm.

this is documented historical fact you fucking retard.
Click to expand...
Refusing service is not "kicking people out". Why must you always apply a strawman argument? Can't you make a point without resorting to trickery? Are you incapable of honest discourse?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Refusing service is not "kicking people out". Why must you always apply a strawman argument? Can't you make a point without resorting to trickery? Are you incapable of honest discourse?
Click to expand...
let me ask you a simple question that you're too cowardly to give the obvious answer to: did the denial of service to blacks before civil rights cause harm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top