Why The Democrats Are The Party Of SLAVERY And VICTIMIZATION

[Rob Roy]

In your lawless society, who would determine if consent was under duress or not?
Should we all be able to take whatever we physically can and only keep what we can protect?
"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"?

It seems like you think some people have the right to force another to serve them or interact with them. Why?
Because I believe all people have the same rights, appointed authoritative figures aside.


I will keep my opinion of those people to myself. What I would ask them "What is this the Middle Ages"?

I don't advocate a lawless society, I advocate consensual human relations and peace. The first law would be that none of us own other people, and we all own ourselves as individuals.

If you believe that all people have the same rights, don't they all have the same right to chose their interactions and decline some ?

 

[Rob Roy]

It isn't theirs anyway. The gov't acquired it through genocide and let them borrow it in exchange for payment.

Governments do use coercive force. How should we end that?

 

[Rob Roy]

yes you do.

Ass backwards. Any consent, IF it exists in a given situation or in a given act must precede the action for something to be consensual. The nature of the act is only part of the equation. So, no (again) I do not say a particular action is or is not consensual, to know that requires more information...dolt.

I do know that you did consent to a heinous act as child, based on your providing that information. So, yes some heinous acts CAN be consented to, you already admitted to that.

 

[see4]

Circular argument. Click your heels 3 times Dorothy and you and Toto will be home by suppertime.


A public business is also a bit oxymoronic.

You need to understand the definition of "circular argument" before using it in a sentence.
A public business is, in no way oxymoronic, a term you seem to also lack understanding.

 

[see4]

 

[doublejj]

You must be one of those idiots who thinks whites are all a bunch of racist bigots huh?

No bro just because Obama changes his mind any time it's politically advantageous doesn't mean that real Americans are flip flopping also. Some people actually believe what they say not just lie to a bunch of dumb liberals who believe every word.... Der

Play'a hate'n....

 

[shishkaboy]

I don't advocate a lawless society, I advocate consensual human relations and peace. The first law would be that none of us own other people, and we all own ourselves as individuals.

If you believe that all people have the same rights, don't they all have the same right to chose their interactions and decline some ?

Who would "enforce" your laws and why would anyone even follow them? They have the right to not follow your laws, right?
What would happen if someone broke your "law"?

What type of ethical system does your proposed set up line up with? I am gonna guess the your are a moral relativist.

Is it Divine Command?

Does the end justify the means?
(Cant be this one because you clearly stated that the end does not justify the means)

Or do we all decide what is right and wrong individually, case by case?

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't advocate a lawless society, I advocate consensual human relations and peace.

what is the most peaceful way to kick someone out of your store because of their skin color, klanman?

 

[UncleBuck]

Ass backwards. Any consent, IF it exists in a given situation or in a given act must precede the action for something to be consensual. The nature of the act is only part of the equation. So, no (again) I do not say a particular action is or is not consensual, to know that requires more information...dolt.

I do know that you did consent to a heinous act as child, based on your providing that information. So, yes some heinous acts CAN be consented to, you already admitted to that.

no, children cannot consent to pedophilia.

 

[schuylaar]

what is the most peaceful way to kick someone out of your store because of their skin color, klanman?

yes in order to let them know there is no consentuality?

 

[schuylaar]

dive for the door and lock it?

 

[UncleBuck]

yes in order to let them know there is no consentuality?

i wonder if rob will ever tell us what the most peaceful way to be a hateful racist is.

 

[schuylaar]

i wonder if rob will ever tell us what the most peaceful way to be a hateful racist is.

i was wondering the same thing..

 

[see4]

You must be one of those idiots who thinks whites are all a bunch of racist bigots huh?

No bro just because Obama changes his mind any time it's politically advantageous doesn't mean that real Americans are flip flopping also. Some people actually believe what they say not just lie to a bunch of dumb liberals who believe every word.... Der

 

[UncleBuck]

View attachment 3451285

i like that one even better than top comment.

 

[Rob Roy]

Who would "enforce" your laws and why would anyone even follow them? They have the right to not follow your laws, right?
What would happen if someone broke your "law"?

What type of ethical system does your proposed set up line up with? I am gonna guess the your are a moral relativist.

Is it Divine Command?

Does the end justify the means?
(Cant be this one because you clearly stated that the end does not justify the means)

Or do we all decide what is right and wrong individually, case by case?

I am a voluntarist (sometimes spelled voluntaryist) and think Panarchism makes sense.

I tend to lean heavily on the non-initiation of aggression principle. This does not mean pacifism, it does allow for defensive force.
You can find lots of information regarding this online. Thanks for asking.

Generally speaking, I'd say the means should be considered and the end result should not be viewed independent of the means.

If someone "broke my law", it would likely mean they initiated aggression against me in some way. There are any number of ways of dealing with that, depending on the severity of the indiscretion and the harm suffered by the victim. Generally speaking the best way to make a person harmed whole again, is to restitute them if that is possible.

I can't determine your life for you and have no desire too, so in my opinion it would be wrong for me to advocate things that dictate malum prohibitum type laws.

 

[Rob Roy]

i wonder if rob will ever tell us what the most peaceful way to be a hateful racist is.

The most peaceful way to be a racist would be for the asshole to remain on his own property and not insist he has a right to make others interact with him.

Could you please explain Mr. Thought Policeman, how a person is harmed by another if the alleged assailant remains on their own property and doesn't initiate contact with the alleged victim?

 

[doublejj]

I am a voluntarist (sometimes spelled voluntaryist) and think Panarchism makes sense.

I tend to lean heavily on the non-initiation of aggression principle. This does not mean pacifism, it does allow for defensive force.
You can find lots of information regarding this online. Thanks for asking.

Generally speaking, I'd say the means should be considered and the end result should not be viewed independent of the means.

If someone "broke my law", it would likely mean they initiated aggression against me in some way. There are any number of ways of dealing with that, depending on the severity of the indiscretion and the harm suffered by the victim. Generally speaking the best way to make a person harmed whole again, is to restitute them if that is possible.

I can't determine your life for you and have no desire too, so in my opinion it would be wrong for me to advocate things that dictate malum prohibitum type laws.

Sounds a lot like Shria law....

 

[Rob Roy]

what is the most peaceful way to kick someone out of your store because of their skin color, klanman?

I think you should stop calling me Klanman, Poopy Pants. It's really sort of dumb and unfunny. You see, you ARE a poopy pants and I think the Klan is a bunch of Bozos.

What is the most peaceful way to force an interaction with someone on their property if they prefer you don't interact with them?

 

[Rob Roy]

Sounds a lot like Shria law....
View attachment 3451297

Shouldn't you be in summer school?