The War on Cash Escalates: The Goal Is to Force You to Deposit Cash and Charge You Interest

[fobesterdam]

So where in all of that is the freedom of choice eliminated?

i LOL'ed.

this guy.

chalk it up yall for future reference.


LOL again.

 

[fobesterdam]

So you are perfectly fine with only those people with means being able to remove themselves from the USA?

In one thread you are all about everyone getting a living wage, or at least better than they get now. In the other you argue that only people who can afford several hundred thousand dollars is perfectly fine and equitable.

You think all those min wage workers got an extra $200k layin around or something? That isn't a choice.

progress brah!



oh yeah.


LOL.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So you are perfectly fine with only those people with means being able to remove themselves from the USA?

In one thread you are all about everyone getting a living wage, or at least better than they get now. In the other you argue that only people who can afford several hundred thousand dollars is perfectly fine and equitable.

You think all those min wage workers got an extra $200k layin around or something? That isn't a choice.

No, if it was up to me it would be free to leave the states if you want to

I was simply commenting on the fact that coercion doesn't entail choice. You have the choice, no matter how difficult it might be, it's still there, which means it isn't coercion. Coercion implies force, choice is defined as available options, so I don't see how if you have a choice there can be coercion

 

[UncleBuck]

It's not coercive to control your own property or body is it?

It IS coercive to make somebody interact with you though isn't it?

Also, you are a meathead, a Poopy Pants Meathead.

so what's the least coercive way to kick someone out of a store based on their skin color?

 

[Rob Roy]

No, if it was up to me it would be free to leave the states if you want to

I was simply commenting on the fact that coercion doesn't entail choice. You have the choice, no matter how difficult it might be, it's still there, which means it isn't coercion. Coercion implies force, choice is defined as available options, so I don't see how if you have a choice there can be coercion

Sometimes coercion is present when "choices" are presented. Generally that means only some of the so called choices have been presented though.

Is the choice of Hillary or whichever Republican dick wadd rises to the top of the shit heap really a choice, if the choice of none of the above is not presented or any other of a multitude of other options are kept out of the range of choices...using coercion?


In your leaving the country scenario, any list of real choices must include the option of staying put and being left alone wouldn't you say?

 

[Rob Roy]

Describe an effective model of government you feel is not based on coercion

I don't think someone robbing you at gunpoint is the same as a government taxing citizens for necessary projects, like funding infrastructure or medical technology or NASA, etc. In the first scenario, you hand over your wallet or you get shot; definitely coercion. In the second scenario you have the complete and total ability to move outside of the US, relinquish your citizenship and never have to pay a cent to the US government again; not coercion. You have choices, you might not believe they're legitimate or effective choices, but that doesn't mean everybody else does. You also have the option not to buy property if you don't want to pay property taxes, nobody is forcing you to buy goods/services, so nobody is forcing you to pay the sales tax.. Taxation comes after your choices, not before. You don't even have to pay an income tax if you don't want to, you can't have a legitimate job, but nobody is forcing you to pay income taxes.

So what you seem to be proclaiming is kind of a utilitarian argument. You think that theft becomes "not theft" or "acceptable theft" when the thief uses the proceeds or part of the proceeds of the theft for something you consider a good thing.

Is that correct?

 

[Rob Roy]

so what's the least coercive way to kick someone out of a store based on their skin color?

 

[UncleBuck]

so you cna't tell me the least coercive ay to kick a person out of a store based on their skin color?

 

[Rob Roy]

so you cna't tell me the least coercive ay to kick a person out of a store based on their skin color?

First, can you describe the circumstances a little better please?

Did the unwelcome intruder know he or she was unwelcome yet they came in anyway or were they unaware they were not welcome?

 

[UncleBuck]

First, can you describe the circumstances a little better please?

Did the unwelcome intruder know he or she was unwelcome yet they came in anyway or were they unaware they were not welcome?

he went in to buy bread and cold cuts. offered the store owner $5 in exchange for those items, which is what the store owner was asking.

so what's the least coercive way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?

 

[NoDrama]

so what's the least coercive way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?

You take his money, give him the items and a receipt and then bid him a good day.
That's how I kicked out all of my customers.

You must know of some other way, you keep asking this question across multiple threads. You must be dying to tell us all how you do it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So what you seem to be proclaiming is kind of a utilitarian argument. You think that theft becomes "not theft" or "acceptable theft" when the thief uses the proceeds or part of the proceeds of the theft for something you consider a good thing.

Is that correct?

Do you consider it theft when your landlord takes your rent money every month?

Also, if you're so concerned with "theft" in this scenario, why don't you remain consistent when an employer steals the surplus labor from his workers to increase his personal income?

 

[UncleBuck]

You take his money, give him the items and a receipt and then bid him a good day.

no, that would make robrot a slave and he would be raped.

 

[Rob Roy]

Do you consider it theft when your landlord takes your rent money every month?

Also, if you're so concerned with "theft" in this scenario, why don't you remain consistent when an employer steals the surplus labor from his workers to increase his personal income?

The word you are avoiding and misrepresenting is "consensual".

Presumably a landlord makes an offer which the tenant is free to accept, reject or counter offer.

If mutual and consensual agreement is reached, the terms of the agreement become the guideline to follow. Upon review of the agreement, it is easy to see who, if anyone commits "theft" or not.

 

[Rob Roy]

no, that would make robrot a slave and he would be raped.

Honoring a mutual agreement would make for a consensual transaction. It happens all the time in a truly free market. Rarely happens in a coercion based system as the existence of the coercive entity makes any subsequent "agreements" in reality "agreed to" under duress, which then becomes a form of extortion. Something which you endorse and I reject.

Also, you seem to have lost your crayons...feeling okay?

 

[Rob Roy]

No, if it was up to me it would be free to leave the states if you want to

I was simply commenting on the fact that coercion doesn't entail choice. You have the choice, no matter how difficult it might be, it's still there, which means it isn't coercion. Coercion implies force, choice is defined as available options, so I don't see how if you have a choice there can be coercion

If the only choices are those presented by the coercive party are they really choices?

Coercion can involve a set of multiple choices, none of which provide an option satisfactory to the person being coerced...you seem to skirt over this.

 

[Rob Roy]

he went in to buy bread and cold cuts. offered the store owner $5 in exchange for those items, which is what the store owner was asking.

so what's the least coercive way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?

Apparently if the store owner was "asking" for $5, you are leaving an important component out of your equation.

Who was the store owner making the offer to? Some people or all people?

Let's say you are in business of shitting on floors and charge $10 per floor, but you don't make that offer to anybody, you only make it to people you want to conduct consensual trade with.

Can any person then demand you come and shit on their floor if they simply wave $10 in your face or should your consent be necessary to conduct an agreed upon transaction before they can assume you will shit on THEIR floor? Should the government intercede and demand you shit on floors of people you'd prefer not to interact with?

 

[UncleBuck]

Apparently if the store owner was "asking" for $5, you are leaving an important component out of your equation.

Who was the store owner making the offer to? Some people or all people?

Let's say you are in business of shitting on floors and charge $10 per floor, but you don't make that offer to anybody, you only make it to people you want to conduct consensual trade with.

Can any person then demand you come and shit on their floor if they simply wave $10 in your face or should your consent be necessary to conduct an agreed upon transaction before they can assume you will shit on THEIR floor? Should the government intercede and demand you shit on floors of people you'd prefer not to interact with?

all that and you still never answered the simple question, racial separatist.

so what's the least coercive way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?