How much do you think average CEO pay should be compared to workers?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Please explain why a business interaction between two consenting parties needs an unwanted third party to intervene?
Government oversight is nothing to be feared? I think you are employing the gun and trying to call it something good.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I think you're mistaking 'rules of the road' for 'outside intervention'.
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
I bet you're pretty jealous of anyone sober who doesn't shit on the floor.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rules of the road which empower a third party to intervene between two consenting peaceful people are not the road I travel.
Those kinds of roads lead to things like prohibition and parasitism. No thank you, say I.
I as an individual have ZERO right to impose my will on you, only to defend myself IF / WHEN you impose on me or my justly acquired property.
Therefore....
The ruling apparatus, this thing called "government" is in reality only an aggregate of individual people, none of whom have any right to impose on you or I as individuals, the sum of all of those people that have zero (rights) to impose will still equal zero.
A consensus of thieves does not make theft any more right than if an individual does it..
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What makes you think people will be peaceful or give consent without rules or authority to enforce them?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I already know when people are given (or take) arbitrary authority over others ,that peace and consent have ALREADY left the building.
Logic insists that the statement above is correct.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How is the rule of law arbitrary?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The following is a Murray Rothbard excerpt...
Most people, including most political theorists, believe that once one concedes the importance, or even the vital necessity, of some particular activity of the State – such as the provision of a legal code– that one has ipso facto conceded the necessity of the State itself.
The State indeed performs many important and necessary functions: from provision of law to the supply of police and fire fighters, to building and maintaining the streets, to delivery of the mail. But this in no way demonstrates that only the State can perform such functions, or, indeed, that it performs them even passably well.
===============================================================================================
The rule of law CAN be arbitrary, (and often is) but it isn't always arbitrary. The first rule, "the golden rule" not to aggress against peaceful people, is broken by the state everytime. To have peace doesn't require the state, it requires the absence of a coercive state or a coercive anything.
Since no state yet has not been coercive, it's a good bet that ridding the world of a state apparatus will be a positive step towards
a more just world. - Rob Roy
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Mala Prohibitum.
Some pigs are more equal than others.
Prohibition.
Wars. Government euphemisms such as collateral damage word smithing murder into not murder etc.
I could go on, but I won't now.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So if we let people enforce the law, we are automatically conceding the necessity for a state, which you are against
And if we don't, we have anarchy, where nobody will be peaceful or cooperative or give consent
So how is that a valid solution?
And if we don't, we have anarchy, where nobody will be peaceful or cooperative or give consent
So how is that a valid solution?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You have made the mistake most do, as you assume that "Anarchy" must mean chaos ensues. Common mistake.
Enforcement of justice doesn't require a state, again a state is unjust from the get go as it's business model is based in coercion.
I think at this point, for you to understand my point of view it might be a good idea if we find where we agree.
Do we agree that it is wrong for people to harm others or threaten them ?
Do we agree that people who do not harm others should be left alone and not automatically encompassed by a coercive organization?
Do we agree that the non-initiation of aggression principle is valid is really what I'm asking.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Pad, why won't you answer this question?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there are some really fertile pastures in this line of trolling if you go check out what ginwilly has been up to!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I have people on ignore, I didn't see it
Not at all, but I'd bet that we have very different opinions on what 'high' means in this context
Yes, I'd agree it's wrong for people to harm or threaten other people
Yes, I'd also agree people who do not harm others should be left alone. But then I would ask you how you go about collecting taxes, or if you believe in the concept of taxes?
Yes, I agree with the non aggression principle
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Disregard post #95...
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think it's good that you agree with the non aggression principle. If you adopt that as part of a core philosophy you will see just how much contradiction there is when people employ cognitive dissonance in attempts to rationalize their behavior.
I do not believe in the concept of a just theft or the concept of renaming a given act in an attempt to make it seem more palatable than what it really is. Neither do you if your statements above agreeing with me are accurate.
There is a video explaining what Anarchy isn't. It was done by Larken Rose' wife (He's an Anarchist) I think. It offers some basic concepts. You could probably find it by googling Larken Rose What Anarchy isn't.
For the record I am not endorsing everything Larken Rose says, but he uses some pretty good logic in his videos. Peace.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
There is some really good fertilizer in your pants Meathead.