Yes or no ? Freedom or slavery ?

[londonfog]

I'm not interested in marrying my mom.

I'm also not interested in harming others that want to marry their mom if all parties involved mututally assent. It's not my business to run others lives for them. Is it yours?

yes. Your life can affect mine.

 

[ginwilly]

Hey with no regulations or rules I should be able to do as I please. I hate stopping at red lights, but I do for a reason

Again, do you need a law saying don't drink bleach?

I am not quite as far on the anarchy train as RR but I don't need a law to dictate common sense. I also still believe in the rule of law and the function of police (protect me from you, not me from me).

You stop at red lights for fear of someone t-boning you or do you stop simply because it's the law?

 

[Rob Roy]

How do you get to own a road ?

There are many ways, but the way that the state "owns" them, backed by coercion and theft is not the one I'd choose.

There would also be nothing to stop people from developing safe alternative transportation such as personal airborne craft in an unchained free market.

 

[ginwilly]

incest has a high probability of creating retarded/disabled offsprings. Don't have sex with your sister

Not that I would, but what if we had protected sex? And if my sister and I had the means to take care of the child, what's it to you? Should we outlaw disabled births?

 

[londonfog]

Why do you think we need laws saying we can't? Do you think there would be a rush of mother/son weddings without them?

Do you think prohibition works?

No prohibition does not work, but I never said get rid nor keep all regulations..but some regulations are needed

 

[Rob Roy]

yes. Your life can affect mine.

If I leave you alone to live in peace, should I be left alone too ? Can you provide an example of where this isn't a good policy?

 

[londonfog]

Not that I would, but what if we had protected sex? And if my sister and I had the means to take care of the child, what's it to you? Should we outlaw disabled births?

your retarded chil

Again, do you need a law saying don't drink bleach?

I am not quite as far on the anarchy train as RR but I don't need a law to dictate common sense. I also still believe in the rule of law and the function of police (protect me from you, not me from me).

You stop at red lights for fear of someone t-boning you or do you stop simply because it's the law?

I stop at red lights mostly because it the law..sometimes because way to much traffic to drive. But with no traffic I would run right thru if it was not against the law

 

[ginwilly]

No prohibition does not work, but I never said get rid nor keep all regulations..but some regulations are needed

This is where we agree. I think people have shown the propensity for greed and the ability to hurt others to benefit themselves.

I agree with regulations (laws) to protect me from you, I don't agree with laws that protect me from me.

 

[Rob Roy]

No prohibition does not work, but I never said get rid nor keep all regulations..but some regulations are needed

In a sense we agree. The first regulation and the most primary is, the golden rule. Many people agree with this with their words, but their actions immediately betray their words.

A coercive government is the epitomy of the hypocritical example I just gave and you can't refute that without jumping off the logic train.

 

[londonfog]

If I leave you alone to live in peace, should I be left alone too ? Can you provide an example of where this isn't a good policy?

that's not the argument. You speak of a society with NO regulations. I say you speak of chaos, not peace.

 

[londonfog]

This is where we agree. I think people have shown the propensity for greed and the ability to hurt others to benefit themselves.

I agree with regulations (laws) to protect me from you, I don't agree with laws that protect me from me.

so you should be able to drink and drive as long as no one is around on the street ?

 

[ginwilly]

your retarded chi

can I marry my brother then? we can't have kids and get along great. What if my brother and I wanted to share the same wife? You ok with that?

I stop at red lights mostly because it the law..sometimes because way to much traffic to drive. But with no traffic I would run right thru if it was not against the law

I've blown through red lights when it's dark, clear and no traffic. I'm a rebel like that, better lock me up.

 

[ginwilly]

so you should be able to drink and drive as long as no one is around on the street ?

And not wear a seat-belt either. Or a helmet. A 30 year old past the legal limit can be much safer driver than a lot of teens or people over 80. If an intoxicated person can drive safely and cause no harm to others, he's done no damage. If you break the law, AND are drunk while doing it, then yes, throw the book at em.

If noone is around to be harmed, why are you concerned what another person does to himself? If he puts others in danger, it's a different story.

 

[Rob Roy]

that's not the argument. You speak of a society with NO regulations. I say you speak of chaos, not peace.

No. I speak of a society where our primary responsibility is not to run others lives for them. Embodied within that is you are free to do what you want as long as you don't prevent others from doing the same with their body or their justly acquired property.

Your nanny state is not based on the golden rule, it is based on arbitrary control. If you don't believe me, go spark up a fattie and call the people that monitor web sites like this.

A society that is based on a coercive central authority can sometimes bring an imposed order (fear based) but it cannot bring freedom or peace.

 

[Rob Roy]

the latter of the two. Some people are stupid and can't be trusted

No need to bring cops or politicians into this discussion.

 

[londonfog]

And not wear a seat-belt either. Or a helmet. A 30 year old past the legal limit can be much safer driver than a lot of teens or people over 80. If an intoxicated person can drive safely and cause no harm to others, he's done no damage. If you break the law, AND are drunk while doing it, then yes, throw the book at em.

If noone is around to be harmed, why are you concerned what another person does to himself? If he puts others in danger, it's a different story.

so it's ok to drink and drive UNTIL you hurt someone..got it. crazy ass fuck

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

EVERY plane in the air HAS to have some sort of inspection according to the flight hours per FAA. Lost of companies would take short cuts if this was not so

You do realize that some airlines have, some airlines are, and some airlines will take shortcuts in the future, regardless of the law?

The law has no bearing on that. Kinda like prohibition.

 

[ginwilly]

so it's ok to drink and drive UNTIL you hurt someone..got it. crazy ass fuck

Nope, not OK at all. People shouldn't do it, but I would bet that thousands (millions?) do every day safely. How about prescription drugs? Should we be allowed to drive on our daily dose of government approved intoxication?

 

[londonfog]

You do realize that some airlines have, some airlines are, and some airlines will take shortcuts in the future, regardless of the law?

The law has no bearing on that. Kinda like prohibition.

Do you have an example of this

 

[Rob Roy]

so it's ok to drink and drive UNTIL you hurt someone..got it. crazy ass fuck

Driving impaired is not a good idea. If you cause harm, you should restitute the person you harmed. If you didn't cause harm, isn't the "crime" then one of disobedience rather than an actionable harm?