Affordable?

[UncleBuck]

Reported to the bad man of your dreams.

stop trying to dodge the question.

what if you give a child a bag of candy and they voluntarily agree to let you shoot them with your gun?

I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

 

[Rob Roy]

stop trying to dodge the question.

what if you give a child a bag of candy and they voluntarily agree to let you shoot them with your gun?

I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

I was taught not to take candy from strangers. Your mother teach you to shit on the floor too?

 

[UncleBuck]

I was taught not to take candy from strangers. Your mother teach you to shit on the floor too?

I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

 

[Rob Roy]

are you sure that didn't happen when owners of private property put signs up in public advertising to the public that the public was welcome to come buy goods and services on their private property?

So how have you refuted that there was and remains government force (initiated aggression) behind the coercive government act of trying to wordsmith a new, oxymoronic meaning for private property?

You haven't.

I see you broke out the crayons too, I guess you're gonna be firing on both AA batteries that power your thought process now eh?

 

[UncleBuck]

So how have you refuted that there was and remains government force (initiated aggression) behind the coercive government act of trying to wordsmith a new, oxymoronic meaning for private property?

You haven't.

I see you broke out the crayons too, I guess you're gonna be firing on both AA batteries that power your thought process now eh?

i asked you a simple question. allow me to repeat it: are you sure that didn't happen when owners of private property put signs up in public advertising to the public that the public was welcome to come buy goods and services on their private property?

also, I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

 

[Rob Roy]

i asked you a simple question. allow me to repeat it: are you sure that didn't happen when owners of private property put signs up in public advertising to the public that the public was welcome to come buy goods and services on their private property?

also, I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

How can a non property owner change what private property is without the owners consent into some other kind of property and NOT be an aggressor?


You seem to be afraid to answer questions.

Define consent please.

Define private property please.

 

[Rob Roy]

i asked you a simple question. allow me to repeat it: are you sure that didn't happen when owners of private property put signs up in public advertising to the public that the public was welcome to come buy goods and services on their private property?

also, I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

I don't understand your question. Relevance?

 

[ChesusRice]

So how have you refuted that there was and remains government force (initiated aggression) behind the coercive government act of trying to wordsmith a new, oxymoronic meaning for private property?

You haven't.

I see you broke out the crayons too, I guess you're gonna be firing on both AA batteries that power your thought process now eh?

According to your non aggression principle
There is nothing wrong with letting your 3 year old child starve to death as long as you dont prevent the child from obtaining food
It would be wrong however for others to trespass on your land trying to give the kid you are starving to death a piece of bread.

 

[UncleBuck]

How can a non property owner change what private property is without the owners consent into some other kind of property and NOT be an aggressor?


You seem to be afraid to answer questions.

Define consent please.

Define private property please.

loaded question. no need to answer questions that presuppose like that. any intellectual person would understand that and not make that fallacy.

i think you should define consent, since you seem to think kids can consent to pedophilia.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't understand your question. Relevance?

let me repeat it then: are you sure that didn't happen when owners of private property put signs up in public advertising to the public that the public was welcome to come buy goods and services on their private property?

 

[NLXSK1]

If you go on someone's land without their permission you are trespassing, regardless of the reason.

You dont understand this concept?

 

[ChesusRice]

If you go on someone's land without their permission you are trespassing, regardless of the reason.

You dont understand this concept?

So you would let the kid starve to death?

 

[UncleBuck]

If you go on someone's land without their permission you are trespassing, regardless of the reason.

You dont understand this concept?

and if you open a store that serves the public, you have their permission regardless of skin color.

why does this make you so upset?

 

[ginwilly]

According to your non aggression principle
There is nothing wrong with letting your 3 year old child starve to death as long as you dont prevent the child from obtaining food
It would be wrong however for others to trespass on your land trying to give the kid you are starving to death a piece of bread.

You really should read about the non-aggression principle for parenting and you wouldn't come up with things like this. They don't even believe in spanking let alone starving a kid.

 

[ChesusRice]

You really should read about the non-aggression principle for parenting and you wouldn't come up with things like this. They don't even believe in spanking let alone starving a kid.

You should read what the non aggression principle states
My scenario is allowable under it

The NAP asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents of the NAP as any encroachment on property rights, is always illegitimate, no matter the consequences of abstaining from encroachment on property rights in a given context

 

[UncleBuck]

You really should read about the non-aggression principle for parenting and you wouldn't come up with things like this. They don't even believe in spanking let alone starving a kid.

do they believe in sister fucking or women drinking while expecting?

 

[ginwilly]

You should read what the non aggression principle states
My scenario is allowable under it

The NAP asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents of the NAP as any encroachment on property rights, is always illegitimate, no matter the consequences of abstaining from encroachment on property rights in a given context

Our founders were pretty famous for holding the same beliefs. The pursuit of happiness that is deemed to be an inherent right was steeped in property rights. They thought each man should be able to own his little piece and do with it as he wishes. They really were racist even though it has nothing to do with it.

RobRoy says over and over that he wouldn't deny anyone based on skin color but you guys keep thinking it's a racist position.

Look how bad you've twisted the principles. You've convinced yourself that it's OK to starve children under the NAP, and it's about denying the black man a meal. How can we take any opinion you have on the matter as being informed?

 

[londonfog]

Our founders were pretty famous for holding the same beliefs. The pursuit of happiness that is deemed to be an inherent right was steeped in property rights. They thought each man should be able to own his little piece and do with it as he wishes. They really were racist even though it has nothing to do with it.

RobRoy says over and over that he wouldn't deny anyone based on skin color but you guys keep thinking it's a racist position.

Look how bad you've twisted the principles. You've convinced yourself that it's OK to starve children under the NAP, and it's about denying the black man a meal. How can we take any opinion you have on the matter as being informed?

what you fail to realize is that Rob Roy's experiment would do just what we are saying...or do you realize it, but don't get give a fuck anyway.

 

[ginwilly]

what you fail to realize is that Rob Roy's experiment would do just what we are saying...or do you realize it, but don't get give a fuck anyway.

You have 50 years ago and longer as a basis in what you believe will happen today and I admit it's a possibility, I just don't think society would let it happen again. I think we've advanced quite a bit in that time. You don't see books on Polish jokes on the best sellers list, was there legislation against this or did people finally realize people are people and being Polish doesn't make you stupid?

You never answer the tough questions on this so I won't ask any but if you need examples to support my argument that society wouldn't allow it, may I point to one of the richest men in American being shunned by an entire nation in Donald Sterling? He didn't even break any laws.

I can't get you to comment on why discriminating based on X is OK but Y is not, so it's really difficult to have an honest debate about it. RACIST!! is what your side has.

BTW, I understand why don't want to allow this freedom, you've said before you believe white people would refuse service to you. It's a valid concern because of our past (and we ignore history at are own peril), but if you base things solely on what's passed, then you believe we would have "camps" set up for Middle Easterns during our many wars over there. You know, because that's our history here.

Calling RobRoy racist for believing in the NAP is borderline pathological. You can disagree with it, but it is not based in anything to with skin color, or sex, or religion or sexual orientation. I think you guys know that, you just can't wrap your head around an argument against it so... RACIST!!

 

[nitro harley]

are you saying that we don't have a dozen members on this forum who advocate for the right to kick people out of their (mainly hypothetical) stores based on skin color alone?

because we do, loser.

Buck.

I have just recently seen some people have to leave a business for not wearing shoes and or a shirt. And they had some pretty dark tans and bad ass tattoos. Does that count?