indiana

[see4]

Thank you for the clarification.

The earth will eventually own my body, until then I will advocate for a peaceful society where all individuals own their own bodies, but not the body of others.

AKA A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. A WONDERFUL THOUGHT BUT NOT POSSIBLE.

 

[Rob Roy]

so if a business refused to serve your son because he is gay, you would tell your son that he just has to accept that his sexual orientation makes him less deserving of respect and equal rights, and that he should respect the bigot like you do?

You can conflate all you want, our argument really boils down to who owns a person....that person or somebody else?

I've consistently maintained nobody "owns" a person but that person themselves, you have tried hard to avoid that, but that's where our differences always come back to. Your calling me a racist is funny, in a kind of pathetic and idiotic way.


I get that you don't like the bigot, neither do I . I also get that you want to use force against him. I won't unless it is in a defensive way. The way you approve of the use of force, is not defensive though. it is a rationalization for the use of offensive force.

In your world bigots are going to interact with you like it or not and you're willing to INITIATE FORCE to them to do it. You can dance around that, but the situation is clear, you think, at least in some instances, forcing a human interaction with a person that wishes to be left alone is acceptable.

If your intent is to foster peace, there are two ways to do it,

One way is to engage in consensual relationships.

The other way is to avoid relationships where one person is forced into it, the force itself negates the possibility of peace.

If your intent is to break the peace, then proceed as you always do, make a person interact with you on YOUR terms.


Concerning my son. He has no right to force a person to interact with him. Nobody has any right to prevent him from interacting with people that wish to interact with him. My son is free to despise the bigot, he is not free to force an interaction or control the bigots property though, that would make him the aggressor.

 

[UncleBuck]

You can conflate all you want, our argument really boils down to who owns a person....that person or somebody else?

I've consistently maintained nobody "owns" a person but that person themselves, you have tried hard to avoid that, but that's where our differences always come back to. Your calling me a racist is funny, in a kind of pathetic and idiotic way.


I get that you don't like the bigot, neither do I . I also get that you want to use force against him. I won't unless it is in a defensive way. The way you approve of the use of force, is not defensive though. it is a rationalization for the use of offensive force.

In your world bigots are going to interact with you like it or not and you're willing to INITIATE FORCE to them to do it. You can dance around that, but the situation is clear, you think, at least in some instances, forcing a human interaction with a person that wishes to be left alone is acceptable.

If your intent is to foster peace, there are two ways to do it,

One way is to engage in consensual relationships.

The other way is to avoid relationships where one person is forced into it, the force itself negates the possibility of peace.

If your intent is to break the peace, then proceed as you always do, make a person interact with you on YOUR terms.


Concerning my son. He has no right to force a person to interact with him. Nobody has any right to prevent him from interacting with people that wish to interact with him. My son is free to despise the bigot, he is not free to force an interaction or control the bigots property though, that would make him the aggressor.

WHAT IS THE MOST PEACEFUL WAY TO KICK SOMEONE OUT OF A STORE BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY?

 

[Rob Roy]

WHAT IS THE MOST PEACEFUL WAY TO KICK SOMEONE OUT OF A STORE BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY?

The answer is the same thing you would tell anybody you don't want to associate with, please leave me alone, I don't want to associate with you.


Now please tell me what is the most peaceful way to force yourself onto somebody else property against the will of that property owner and insist they use their body to serve you under threat of force ? How would you force a person to interact with you that prefers not to? Hit them? Steal their stuff? Shit on their floor? Is there some kind of date rape manual you use that could provide tips in using force to get your way?

 

[UncleBuck]

please leave me alone, I don't want to associate with you.

SO LETS SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT: YOU ARE RUNNING A STORE SELLING BATTERIES, A GAY PERSON WALKS IN AND OFFERS YOU MONEY FOR BATTERIES HE NEEDS FOR HIS KID'S RC CAR, YOU TELL HIM "PLEASE LAVE ME ALONE I DO NOT WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY", HE NOW HAS TO DRIVE 20 MILES TO THE NEXT BATTERY STORE FOR BATTERIES WHERE THEY COST ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH.

YOU THINK THAT IS THE MOST PEACEFUL WAY OF DOING THINGS?

what is the most peaceful way to force yourself onto somebody else property against the will of that property owner and insist they use their body to serve you under threat of force ?

WHO HAS EVER BEEN FORCED TO OPEN A PUBLIC STORE RATHER THAN A PRIVATE ONE?

YOUR QUESTION PRESUPPOSES A SCENARIO WHICH DOES NOT EXIST YOU RACIST RETARD.[/QUOTE]

 

[WeedFreak78]

Rob Roy, I agree with the premise of your societal model, based on consensual interaction and personal ownership of self and property, but how are disputes between two disagreeable parties resolved? How are property rights established and resolved? In a situation where one persons actions, of their own accord, on their own property are effecting, directly or indirectly, another persons right to their personal ownership of self or property, who, or what, decides the proper way to resolve the situation?

 

[UncleBuck]

Rob Roy, I agree with the premise of your societal model, based on consensual interaction and personal ownership of self and property, but how are disputes between two disagreeable parties resolved? How are property rights established and resolved? In a situation where one persons actions, of their own accord, on their own property are effecting, directly or indirectly, another persons right to their personal ownership of self or property, who, or what, decides the proper way to resolve the situation?

ARBITRATION! WELCOME TO THE WORLD WHERE EVERY SNICKERS BAR PURCHASE IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LEGAL CONTRACT, LEST YOU BE LEFT WITH NO DISCOURSE SHOULD YOU UNWRAP IT AND FIND A THREE MUSKETEERS BAR INSTEAD.

I SHIT YOU NOT.

 

[WeedFreak78]

@Rob Roy, I'm interested in your response.

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob Roy, I agree with the premise of your societal model, based on consensual interaction and personal ownership of self and property, but how are disputes between two disagreeable parties resolved? How are property rights established and resolved? In a situation where one persons actions, of their own accord, on their own property are effecting, directly or indirectly, another persons right to their personal ownership of self or property, who, or what, decides the proper way to resolve the situation?

In a truly free market needed services usually arise due to customer wants and needs. The best providers of those services often flourish, the worst don't stay in business. That is, if competition is involved. A competitive market keeps service providers innovating to retain valued customers who will seek satisfaction elsewhere if the service provider they were using fails to provide it.

In the present paradigm of "arbitration of disputes" there isn't really a free market, its held as a coercive monopoly by the state. When that happens the state operates blindly as they receive no real customer feedback, due to their "customers" in actuality being captives and unable to use other arbitrators. Their so called "customers" aren't free to seek services elsewhere....that's the problem.

Why couldn't there be a lots of service providers involved in arbitrating binding results ? The answer is the entity that holds the monopoly would be revealed as inept, they aren't going to let that get revealed as long as they hold the gun are they?

Captives are not customers, no matter what the entity holding the gun says.

Recommended reading = Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehille.

 

[WeedFreak78]

In a truly free market needed services usually arise due to customer wants and needs. The best providers of those services often flourish, the worst don't stay in business. That is, if competition is involved. A competitive market keeps service providers innovating to retain valued customers who will seek satisfaction elsewhere if the service provider they were using fails to provide it.

In the present paradigm of "arbitration of disputes" there isn't really a free market, its held as a coercive monopoly by the state. When that happens the state operates blindly as they receive no real customer feedback, due to their "customers" in actuality being captives and unable to use other arbitrators. Their so called "customers" aren't free to seek services elsewhere....that's the problem.

Why couldn't there be a lots of service providers involved in arbitrating binding results ? The answer is the entity that holds the monopoly would be revealed as inept, they aren't going to let that get revealed as long as they hold the gun are they?

Captives are not customers, no matter what the entity holding the gun says.

Recommended reading = Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehille.

I understand free market concepts. I understand the issues with the current arbitration system. None of this answers the question I asked. Again:

"I agree with the premise of your societal model, based on consensual interaction and personal ownership of self and property, but how are disputes between two disagreeable parties resolved? How are property rights established and resolved? In a situation where one persons actions, of their own accord, on their own property are effecting, directly or indirectly, another persons right to their personal ownership of self or property, who, or what, decides the proper way to resolve the situation?"

It's a fairly straight forward question.

As an aside, do you consider yourself an anarchist, philosophically as a political view, not in a demeaning manner as it is sometimes used? It would help me understand your line of though a little better.

 

[Rob Roy]

I understand free market concepts. I understand the issues with the current arbitration system. None of this answers the question I asked. Again:

"I agree with the premise of your societal model, based on consensual interaction and personal ownership of self and property, but how are disputes between two disagreeable parties resolved? How are property rights established and resolved? In a situation where one persons actions, of their own accord, on their own property are effecting, directly or indirectly, another persons right to their personal ownership of self or property, who, or what, decides the proper way to resolve the situation?"

It's a fairly straight forward question.

As an aside, do you consider yourself an anarchist, philosophically as a political view, not in a demeaning manner as it is sometimes used? It would help me understand your line of though a little better.

Yes, you're right I may not have completed answering your questions. I was doing the dishes at the same time and hitting the evil pipe as well. My apologies.


I'm not sure which term I'd use. As far as I can tell it might be something like a Voluntaryist / Panarchist. Labels are sometimes confining though. For a long time I thought of myself as a kind of libertarian, but that doesn't seem to fit anymore.

I consider myself the owner of myself and not the owner of anyone else. I reject coercive government, but am okay with others that wish to align interests for their common benefit doing so as long as they confine the scope of their "good idea" to themselves.

Property rights are established by either being the first to use and / or occupy previously unowned property or by consensual exchange, if real estate. I sometimes philosophically question the heredity thing or the ownership of unoccupied property by an absentee owner.

If non real estate, property rights are established by making something, usually a tangible object from natural resources or making a consensual exchange with somebody to acquire something they have and you want. They could also be created when unowned property is appropriated, usually from nature and used by the new "owner".


The "proper" or best way to resolve a situation is peacefully. There are lots of ways to do that.

 

[WeedFreak78]

And what about assholes..what if a store says they wont deal with assholes..do assholes have the right to be served? Would assholes than be able to join together to make their own group to fight oppression? You can argue you can't change an asshole..it's in their being, just like gays...sure they could pretend to be nice..just like a gay can pretend to be straight, but it's all a facade.

hypotheticals..lol.

 

[Rob Roy]

AKA A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. A WONDERFUL THOUGHT BUT NOT POSSIBLE.

"The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." ~ Arthur Lee

 

[see4]

"The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." ~ Arthur Lee

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." ~ Some Prezident Dood.

 

[Rob Roy]

ARBITRATION! WELCOME TO THE WORLD WHERE EVERY SNICKERS BAR PURCHASE IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LEGAL CONTRACT, LEST YOU BE LEFT WITH NO DISCOURSE SHOULD YOU UNWRAP IT AND FIND A THREE MUSKETEERS BAR INSTEAD.

I SHIT YOU NOT.

Oh, its really funny when you say, "I shit you not" . Yes, Poopy Pants, it's ironically funny.


A price tag is an offer, your bringing it to the counter and paying for it is a signal of your acceptance.

Pricing and haggling customs vary even within a given society. A marked candy bar price is usually the price, take it or leave it. Other things are more negotiable, a car or a house for instance.

It would be fraudulent to put a turd bar in a crap bar package, that would be grounds for restitution to the person defrauded Wendy.

 

[Rob Roy]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." ~ Some Prezident Dood.

""Ask how a country can claim to own people without their personal individual consent and still maintain it is a freedom based country" - Some logical dude.

 

[WeedFreak78]

AKA A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. A WONDERFUL THOUGHT BUT NOT POSSIBLE.

But should that not be what we use as an end goal to achieve as close to it as possible?

 

[Rob Roy]

So if you sold gasoline in lets say NOLA, and a Hurricane forced evacuation of all souls.
You could have the power between life and death. Seems fair.
Need a heart or liver transplant? Drive on. Oh, you need gas? Drive on.

Please don't start selling anything that can save my life.

You might be misconstruing what my beliefs are, lots of others here seem to have rabidly followed that path.

I never said I wouldn't sell something to a person based on their gender or race. I've said all along I don't believe I or anybody else has the right to force others to sell something to me and I don't favor coercive government forcing people to interact.

Two distinctly separate things.

 

[see4]

But should that not be what we use as an end goal to achieve as close to it as possible?

We are. It's being civilized to each other. And unfortunately we need rules because some people are incapable of being civilized to each other without rules in place.

 

[bluto392]

if the entire straight population of a city or state decides they'll in no way associate with gay people- no businesses, banks, property or services are available to gay men or lesbian women.

They would be forced to move, yes? Isn't that disassociation by force? Is that preferable to forcing people to associate with regards to public transactions?

Come to think of it, how are public transactions association? It's an exchange.